America: Why?

Yesterday, Americans re-elected Donald Trump to be their President. This, despite his thirty four felony convictions, his being found liable for sexual assault, his pending trials for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election and taking secret government documents, his role in the January 6 insurrection, and his campaign of darkness, chaos, revenge and violence. In fact, they not only re-elected him, they gave him a majority of the popular vote and a commanding lead in the Electoral College count. And while I say “despite”, I think it worth acknowledging that millions of Americans voted for him not “despite” these things, but because of them.

For many of us who grew up under the unbrella of the post Second World War consensus led by the United States, this seems incomprehensible and yet, when you dig deeper, is it really? America has a long history of isolationism, racism and even flirting with fascism but, somehow, has always managed to hold those forces at bay. Winston Churchill famously said “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else” and there was a kind of comfort in that thought as history showed time and again it to be true. Until now perhaps.

So, why have Americans so completely upended their, and likely the world’s order, in this election? The coming weeks and months will see scholars parsing the election results and offering their views on what happened. They will show that this or that issue, this or that choice or word, had some effect on the margins, that certain big issues like the economy weighed heavily on the outcome but few of them will give us a really satisfying result. I’m no expert, but I have my own theories.

What has happened in America is neither unique nor particularly mysterious. We have been witnessing serious internal challenges to the western dominated international order since at least the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom when what seemed manifestly against the interests of the vast majority of its citizens was, never-the-less, supported by a majority of them. This has been followed by the rise of extreme right wing parties across Europe, including in countries long considered the very model of moderation. In Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, parties rooted in the notion of “blood and soil” have been on the rise. That America has now joined this group should surprise no one although, given its prominence in the western democratic alliances, its shift will have an outsized effect upon us all.

And so I return to the question of “why?”. Of course there are local, grievances and issues and they drive some votes some of the time but I also believe they only gain traction against the backdrop of other, nation wide feelings and grievances. I believe there are three such areas in western liberal societies: the economy; immigration and the attempt to reshape some of the most fundamental beliefs of those societies to achieve a kind of post modern nation.

On the surface, the American economy should be the last thing on Americans list of concerns. By almost any standard, it’s humming with low unemployment, good wage growth, low inflation and year over year gains in GDP. Despite all this, many, if not most, Americans are still suffering from “sticker shock” which is the result of the COVID induced spike in inflation causing everything to be much more expensive than it was even a few years ago. And while on the topic of COVID, although I don’t list it as a major factor in the election outcomes, it was none the less, a profound shock to all societies, including the United States, a shock that seriously undermined peoples’ view of who they were and what their rights were. And that shock certainly caused further fragmenting in society.

The one issue that is consistent across all the nations experiencing radical political change is immigration. Whether it’s because of political instability, climate change or something else, vast numbers of people have moved from the relatively undeveloped global south to the more affluent and stable north and west. And in America this is a particularly fraught issue as millions of undocumented immigrants have flowed across its southern border. Aside from the most obvious effects of this such as homeless encampments and other types of disorder, it also feeds into what is known as “the great replacement theory” where the current inhabitants of America fear their way of life and their values will be replaced by immigrants from countries with very different historical experiences or values. And this is not just a fear in America. It is acutely so in parts of Europe that have experienced mass immigration over the last few decades and, even in Canada, where the fantasy of an harmonious multi cultural society is challenged by shocking outbursts of anti semitism and homophobia, often at the hands of relatively recent immigrants from countries and societies with cultural and religious views completely at odds with core Canadian values. Instead of dismissing this fear out of hand, it deserves a closer and more sympthetic hearing than it usually gets. In fact, and this is heresy in countries like Canada, mixing such diverse people and expecting a benign outcome may not be possible. That doesn’t mean ending immigration but it may mean being much more selective about who can joint these national families.

The third issue is the hardest to pin down but likely the one to spark the most intense debate: trying to reshape people and societies into a form that is radically different from what is core to their historical being. Whether it involves the rights of gays and lesbians or transexuals, what is acceptable in the public discourse, particularly between men and women, what place religion should have in shaping a society, what values should be the bedrock of a community and how they relate to historical values and, finally, what we should honour and respect in our past. It’s no exaggeration to say there has been a deliberate and aggressive attempt to reshape many of these by, for lack of a better word, “elites”, whether academic, political or economic and, not surprisingly, that has led to resentment amongst many people and political pushback. At the least, this needs to be dialed down and we need to find a way to better accommodate the competing voices.

And so here we are on the verge of another Trump presidency. I have no idea whether it will be as terrible as some are predicting but I suspect we’ll emerge whole on the other side, perhaps a bit chastened and that might be a good thing.

Just sayin

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

Floating Down the Mississippi

I’ve just returned from a trip on a paddlewheeler from Memphis to New Orleans. Given the fraught state of American politics right now, I wasn’t sure what I would encounter in the “Deep South” but assumed I would run into a phalanx of “Trump” supporters and signs. I almost certainly ran into Trump supporters but, as for signs, the only one I saw was in a window in Natchez, Mississippi. Aside from that, there was little if anything to show an election was happening.

Like most people who don’t live there, my views of “the South” were shaped by many myths, whether the horrors of slavery and racial discrimination, or the Disneyeque pictures of the genteel south encapsulated by “Gone With the Wind”, all nicely wrapped in the sorrow of its music. As it turned out, there was some truth to both pictures but it was a lot more complicated than the black and white images I brought with me.

Our starting point was Memphis, Tennessee although, because the Mississippi was so low, we had to be bussed south to a moorage in Mississippi. The two nights in Memphis were less than memorable, with one notable exception. Unfortunately, the cruise line decided to house us in the Graceland Guest House which is right across the street from Graceland but is a long distance from downtown Memphis. I learned that Graceland was the second most visited house in America after the White House although I did not add my number to that count. The most interesting/disturbing occurrence happened at the guest house. On my first night there, I was sound asleep and suddenly my room was filled with light from the enormous flat screen TV opposite the bed and, in the background, Elvis was singing “you ain’t nothing but a hound dog”. It was 1:45 a.m. I raised this with the desk the next morning. They said they hadn’t heard of it and made a note of it. I assumed it was looked after. The next night, this time at 3:45 a.m., the same thing happened although Elvis was singing something else. I left the next day for the cruise and, upon consulting my fellow cruisers, found many had the same experience. Weird.

Downtown Memphis looked interesting although the famous Beal Street during the day was mostly closed or deserted. What’s more, it was effectively only two blocks long and had the feel of a tourist trap. The one unreserved good thing about Memphis was our meal on the second night when we went to a restaurant called “Porch and Parlour” and had an outstanding meal. It was also New York prices.

Our first stop after Memphis was Cleveland. When I heard we were stopping in Cleveland I worried we might be going in the wrong direction but then discovered there is a Cleveland, Mississippi. I gather it is a fairly typical small town in Mississippi, although it’s main street was tarted up to appeal to tourists on the river boats. There wasn’t much there there (apologies to Gertrude Stein), although my rare interractions with the merchants were nothing but polite, indeed as I was looking for shoe laces, they were extremely helpful, offering to phone other stores to see if they carried them. Initially, I did wander into what I thought was a regular bookstore only to find myself in the midst of Christian store with an owner who quickly, and correctly I might add, assessed me as fallen. I fled.

The first of the really interesting stops was Vicksburg. Vicksburg was the site of a major battle and seige during the American Civil War. The fortress/city was under seige for two months in 1863 and eventually surrendered to Union General, Ulysses S. Grant. Most of the plantations surrounding the city were destroyed and, because of the seige, many of the antebellum homes in Vicksburg were also severely damaged or destroyed. During the seige the residents of Vicksburg retreated to caves to avoid the constant bombardments.

The people I met in Vicksburg were very conscious of their civil war history, referring to their great, great grandparents and their experience during it. And yet, they did not fit into the stereotype of the culturally backward southerner. In fact, quite the opposite. At the Old Courthouse Museum there is an extraordinary collection of aritifacts going back several hundred years, including many to do with the Civil War. One of the attendants was a young woman with hair slightly tinted purple and wearing a “Pride” button. When I purchased a cookbook for a friend she asked if I would like it gift wrapped for an extra dollar. I said yes, expecting a bit of paper but, instead, was presented with a package worthy of any Christmas tree (lots of ribbons and curls).

Perhaps my most pleasant experience in Vicksburg happened when I walked into a very old music store named “Michel’s Record Shop”. It was empty when I entered but then I heard the door open behind me and a very pretty elderly lady, with bright blue eyes and a charming southern accent, came in. She was the owner and I would guess was probably well into her ninth decade. It wasn’t clear what, if anything, was for sale as there were used musical instruments everywhere and vinyl records, posters and photographs of shows and musical greats going back more than half a century. At first I was browsing but, fairly quickly, she assumed the role of guide and took me through sixty two years (the shop opened in 1962) of musical history in the south. There were some performers I’d never heard of although I suspect better informed Blues lovers would have recognized them right away. She told stories of Elvis and his gold Cadillac parked outside for two days, of Sam Cook performing in the store, of her husband’s good friend, Willie Dixon, of celebrities like Natalie Cole, Dorothy Moore and Kenny Rogers coming in to sign their records with lineups down the block and, perhaps the crowning piece was an old photograph of a much younger her sitting on the back of a convertible, BB King next to her with his arm around her, as they paticipated in a parade on the street outside. There were black and white photos of juke joints, also known as barrel houses, deep in the Mississippi woods where mostly black audiences enjoyed the blues while partaking in dancing, gambling and moonshine. Michel’s Record shop is named after the lady’s late husband. She is known affectionately as “the music lady” in Vicksburg and I was so lucky to meet her.

The next major stop after Vicksburg was Natchez, Mississippi. Unlike Vicksburg, Natchez was not destroyed in the Civil War so it has a definite antebellum charm. Many of the original townhouses of the plantation owners remain, restored and lived in. The reason Natchez was not destroyed depends upon who you ask. In Vicksburg they told me Natchez was not destroyed because, having witnessed what happened to its sister city, Vicksburg, up the river, Natchez simply surrendered. My guide in Natchez had a different story. He claimed Natchez was neutral during the war, something that is a little hard to credit.

And while I’m on the subject of my guide, he was exactly what a little southern gentleman of a certain age would look and sound like, a bit like Colonel Saunders, but more refined. His family lived in Natchez for many generations and he said his great, great grandfather went to West Point with Ulysses S. Grant who, when the war broke out, sent a clipper to Natchez to rescue his family. They spent the war years in Geneva, Switzerland. And, just to give you a sense of this man, as we drove by a grand old hotel on the river he announced there was a lovely bar on the roof where he used to take his wife for drinks. He then paused and said “when she was someone else’s wife”.

Natchez was also the site of a remarkable building called Longwood, also known as “Nutt’s Folly”. It is octagonal and, from the outside looks like something out of “Kubla Khan”. What now stands was built in fourteen months by slaves. It’s owner, Haller Nutt owned approximately 800 slaves and was building Longwood for his wife when the Civil War broke out. His craftsmen were from the north and left. The building is as it was in 1862 with only the basement level finished. The rest is preserved as a construction site. One of the more poignant moments was when bricks with fingerprints were pointed out. The slaves were illiterate and would mark a brick they made with their fingerprints in the hope their daily output would exceed their quota and they would be given additional food to take home to their families.

The next major stop was the state capital of Louisiana, Baton Rouge. We sailed into Baton Rouge just after dark and saw what I subsequently learned was the Capital Building. In New York, Chicago or Detroit it wouldn’t have been remarkable but in Baton Rouge, standing alone at thirty four stories and lit from all sides, it was remarkable.

Baton Rouge is named after a blood soaked pole that separated the lands of the native peoples who lived there prior to European settlement, the Bayougoula and Houma tribes. There are several things that are remarkable about the city. First, there’s the capital. Built when Huey Long was Governor with the intention of being the tallest state capital in the nation. From the outside it looks similar to early twentieth century highrises in America’s northeastern and mid western cities except, as noted, it stands alone. Huey Long’s grave and monument stand in front of it, the monument being a statue with him looking up at it. I was there on a Sunday and, for some reason, the state Senate was in session so I was limited to the large public rotunda outside the Senate chamber. It was a remarkable room. In fact, I have never seen such detailed and beautiful art deco ornamentation anywhere else.

And on the subject of Huey Long, I have known of him over the years and always had the impression he was a wannabe dictator clothed in populist clothing (like someone else we know today). It seems I was wrong. Huey Long was Governor and then senator from Louisiana. He aspired to be President but was assassinated in the State Capital. He assisted FDR get the Democratic nomination that led to his election but broke with him over the timidity of the New Deal programs in FDR’s first term. In other words, he was a true populist. People in Louisiana speak of him as if he was almost contemporary, referring to him as “Huey” and with considerable affection.

Because of his Presidential ambitions he had the Louisiana Governor’s mansion built to resemble a smaller version of the White House, his belief being once elected he wouldn’t have to worry about getting oriented in the White House. That building stands today although it has been replaced by a much larger residence.

A museum sits opposite the State House. It traces the development of what is now Louisiana from its pre-European days until the present. What is striking is how honestly it confronts the legacy of slavery. One exhibit had a plaque stating slaves where confined into tight quarters at night, quarters with doors that had openings at the top for air. Two examples of these were beside the plaques and, when I leaned into the dark openings, I heard moaning, whispering and humming. Haunting.

The other thing to note about Baton Rouge is Louisiana State University where we went on a bus tour. It’ was enormous and what struck me most was the high profile of all the athletic facilities, including a football stadium that can hold 105,000 spectators, a baseball arena and an arena for basketball, all enormous and all central to the identity of the university. There was no mention of academics although I’m sure they offer good programs in those areas but I couldn’t help contrast this with the two Canadian universities I attended, both of which had major sports teams and facilities, but those were completely secondary to the central role, mission and image of the universities. Sports obviously plays a more important role in American life (okay, yes, we’re crazy over hockey) and I have no idea what, if anything, that means in defining the two cultures.

We also drove past two Civil War cemetaries in Baton Rouge, one the final resting place of Confederate soldiers and the other the final resting place of Union soldiers. They were separated by a narrow street. Both were enormous with headstones stretching as far as the eye could see. The Union cemetary was designed to look like the national cemetary at Arlington across the Ptomac River from Washington.

Our final major stop was New Orleans. By this time I was getting tired and thought I was coming down with a cold (turned out to be COVID) so I didn’t have much energy to explore the city I used to love and haven’t seen in decades. The one thing I did on day one when my companions were off doing something else is go to an old and famous gay bar, Laffitte in Exile. I remember it thirty years ago as large, open to the street, with good music, friendly and with a balcony on the second floor where you could sip your libation and view the spectacle below on Bourbon Street. I nearly walked by it. It seemed to have shrunk. Inside it was pokey, quiet and dark, with only one other customer. I ordered a beer, took two sips and then left. It’s true, you can never go home again.

So what did I learn from my trip through the Mississippi delta? Maybe a little humility. I approached it as if it was something out of “The Heart of Darkness” and, instead, met a world with its own complexities, but populated by friendly and gracious people. They completely negated their stereotypes.

This is a land with a terrible dark legacy, slavery, and its inhabitants don’t shy away from confronting that, but they also seem determined to forge ahead while honouring that of their past that was good or at least heroic. I couldn’t help contrast that with the endless, strangling mea culpas we in Canada indulge in as we “atone” for the sins of our ancestors towards the aboriginal inhabitants of Canada whose treatment was gentle compared to three hundred years of slavery in America.

My guide in Baton Rouge was a woman who was perhaps in her mid forties and whose family had lived in the area for generations. Her accent was certainly southern but nothing like the harsh stereotypes some offer. When the tour ended she said: “We don’t say goodbye in the south because our visitors become our friends.” And then with a slightly wry smile she said: “Y’all come back now. Y’hear.”.

Just sayin

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

The B.C Election: Which Side are you On (Boy)?

On October 19 British Columbians will go to the polls and decide whether the NDP government should be allowed to stay in office after six years, or to bring back the Conservatives after a century in the political wilderness. It’s not a choice most British Columbians, myself included, want to make but, with the collapse of the Liberal/B.C. United party, it’s the only real choice we have.

In an earlier blog I identified four issues that will affect my vote: the drug accelerated disorder on the streets of cities and towns across B.C.; the failing healthcare system; our response to climate change and managing the province’s finances. Subsequently, I wrote a blog criticizing the government’s approach to reconciliation with native bands, particularly acknowledging aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwai, as creating uncertainty over the ownership of Crown lands as well as land that is privately held in B.C., and so I include it in the issues guiding my vote in the upcoming election.

Anyone who lives in or near the centre of a major town or city in B.C. confronts the results of policy failures concerning illegal drugs and homelessness every time they step out their front door. And, in the past few years, the consequences have moved from being unsightly to being downright dangerous. Although we are constantly told violent crime is going down in Vancouver, that is cold comfort when we regularly encounter people experiencing some kind of drug induced psychosis on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, and against the backdrop of recent horrendous stranger attacks in the Vancouver.

These problems have worsened during the six years of NDP governance, certainly because of the increased availability of toxic drugs on the streets, but also because the government has pursued an approach fixated on the single metric of keeping drug addicts alive. In fact, it has gone so far as to decriminalize drugs in B.C., something it has partially reversed after the chaos it unleashed prompted a public outcry that threatened its re-election, and placing vending machines with drug paraphenalia in hospitals and other public facilities. Even what seemed like a fairly innocuous approach a few years ago, the opening of a safe injection site in the Downtown Eastside, has, with the opening of similar such sites elsewhere in the city and province, caused the disorder, pettty crime and random violence to metastacize across other neighbourhoods and communities. This is madness that should have been obvious prior to our descent into the apparently bottomless pit of drug accommodation but, even if not then, after failure upon failure in curbing drug overdoses, deaths, property crime and random violence.

Both David Eby and John Rustad are now advocating for a different approach to the issue of illegal drugs and street disorder and, in some remarkable ways, their approaches seem to be converging. A consensus has emerged (at least between the NDP and the Conservatives) that we need to significantly ramp up facilities for treatment and to diminish the likelihood of “get out of jail free” responses when violent and persistent offenders appear before the courts. Both leaders now advocate for greater use of involuntary detention and treatment.

So, who should we trust with this file? Well, in David Eby’s case, he was opposed to these measures before he was for them, and then was against them, and, finally, is now for them again. For the time being at least. I’m all for people changing their positions in response to new information but, in his case, this epiphany seems suspiciously motivated by politics and, once the election is over, I’m not at all sure it will continue with a re-elected NDP government. In fact, given the considerable influence within the coalition that is the NDP of those who have championed the rights and interests of the drug addicts over those of the rest of us , I suspect the position of a new NDP government will settle back into the same failed approach we have witnessed for the past six years. So I notch one for the Conservatives because I do believe on this issue they will show stronger leadership and will put the interests of the general public over those who have chosen to use illicit drugs.

The second issue is how to change our healthcare system so the obvious shortcomings we witness daily are addressed. This happens to be something I know a little about and I’m under no illusion either party has a straightforward and simple answer to issues concerning ER closures, people without family doctors and waitlists for everything from diagnostics to procedures. And I commend the NDP government for some of its policies, particularly those aimed at increasing the number of doctors and nurses in B.C. although I can’t help feel it’s too little, too late. On the other hand, previous provincial governments, both Liberal and NDP, ignored the warning signs of the coming crisis and, in some cases, took actions that made it worse. And things are going to get much worse before they get better because of factors mostly beyond the control of governments: the Baby Boom generation entering that part of our lives when our needs for medical care rise exponentially; the retirement of Baby Boom physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals; and the relentless immigration into the province. All of this was predictable but, as I said earlier, their’s lots of blame to go around on this file.

While I commend the NDP government for many of its initiatives responding to these pressures, none of them are sufficient to get us past the next ten to twenty years. For that we need a fundamental rethink of how we provide medical care in B.C. and how it is paid for. This, of course, is the third rail of Canadian politics, the one where anyone going near it is instantly labelled an enemy of Medicare and/or un-Canadian. The people doing the labelling often refer to themselves as “the friends of Medicare” although their actions stifling any real debate about the fundamentals of the Medicare system in Canada run the real risk of loving it to death because the current course is unsustainable. Perhaps because of its close association with the founding of Medicare in Canada, the NDP seems especially paralyzed in these conversations and regularly weaponizes the arguments against anyone suggesting fundamental change. So I am interested in the Conservative’s proposals that would provide wait time guarantees with the escape valve of publicly funded and privately provided care. I also think John Rustad’s ruminations on whether, and if so how, people should be able to purchase insurance to get care when it is not readily available in the public system is worth pursuing. By the way, these proposals will cost money, probably a lot, which is why the NDP claims that the Conservatives will cut funding for healthcare is such a lie. So, again, advantage Conservatives.

The third issue is how the government is going to respond to man made climate change and, on this one, the NDP had me squarely in its corner with the carbon tax which experts tell us is the best, most effective way to encourage people to make choices that reduce their CO2 footprint. Of course, as I stated in earlier blogs and posts, the carbon tax only works if all the funds collected are returned to the people who paid them in the first place, thus providing a clear market incentive to make other expenditure decisions and, in B.C., the NDP government undermined this essential principle by retaining large amounts of the tax revenues and using it as a cash cow for anything that, even vaguely, related to the environment.

My calculation on this factor was completely upended when David Eby announced that a new NDP government would abolish the carbon tax if re-elected and it was abolished federally, as seems likely. He cited the “collapse of the public consensus” supporting the tax as his reason for the changed position. Well, yes, it is probably fair to say that consensus has collapsed but that is at least partly because of actions of the NDP government as mentioned above. More to the point, ” collpase of the public consensus” sounds suspiciously like it was going to cost the NDP votes and, perhaps, the election. So, rank political cynicism where, instead of defending the tax as good environmental policy or, better, promising to return the tax to its original form where the funds are returned to the taxpayer, far easier politically to simply join the “axe the tax” mob.

I now have no idea what either party plans to do in the absence of the carbon tax to meet our obligations on the environment file. On the one hand, we have a party leader who originally seemed to be denying the reality of man made climate change (although he does seem to have moderated his position on this) and, on the other, a leader who, despite seeming to believe the climate scientists, is willing to throw the best climate policy under the bus to increase his chance of getting re-elected. So, I have a draw, and not a good one, on this issue.

The fourth issue is whether, and if so how, the government balances the provincial budget. I have a number of left leaning friends who regularly tell me with all sincerity government deficits don’t matter for any number of exotic reasons. This leaves me wondering if we’ve lived in parallel universes for the past seventy five years. Of course government deficits matter in all manner of ways, whether it’s upward pressure on itnerest rates, increasing amounts of taxes being paid as interest, limits on what the government can do and squeezing out the private sector in credit markets, amongst other things.

The Conservatives say they will balance the budget although they don’t say how or over what period. The NDP is conspicuously silent on the issue which isn’t surprising given its record. The NDP government led by John Horgan understood the need to be fiscally conservative, spending within the province’s means. That’s one of the reasons I voted for it in the last election. But, as soon as John Horgan retired and was replaced by David Eby, everything changed, most dramatically with the rush to spend the billions they were left as surplus before it could be applied to the provincial debt. And that pattern continues, resulting in the downgrading of the province’s credit rating and dire warnings of fiscal problems in the not distant future.

So, on this issue, I’m faced with the Conservatives at least acknowedging the need to balance the budget and the NDP promising more of the same. On balance, it’s advantage Conservatives.

The last issue is the approach to reconciliation with native bands in B.C. In an earlier blog I expressed concern over ceding Aboriginal Title to all of Haida Gwaii to the Haida nation, believing as I do it sets a precedent for the rest of Crown land in B.C. which constitutes approximately 94% of the land mass of British Columbia. It also introduces uncertainty over the status of privately owned land in the province. I understand the need to achieve some kind of reconciliation with the native inhabitants of B.C. although, as I have said elsewhere, their treatment is consistent with, if not more benign, than the treatment of all other peoples overwhelmed or conquered by another group throughout human history. What I do not support is the position that, because they were here before the Europeans and later Asians, their views should be paramount when it concerns land use in B.C. Native people make up less than six percent of the population of the province and creating a system where that six percent trumps the interests and wishes of the other ninety four percent is both undemocratic and guaranteed to lead to future conflict. In my view, the final decisions on the use of Crown Lands should always reside with the Crown. That is the position of the Conservatives but certainly not that of the NDP. So, again, point to the Conservatives.

Based on the forgoing it might seem inevitable I would support the Conservatives. If only it were that simple. Campaigns matter as do the views and personalities of the individuals running for office. I am certainly turned off by the kind of ads the NDP is running, reminding me as they do of the behaviour of the Social Credit Party in its endless wars against the CCF and the NDP. Some of you know I was very active in the NDP over fifty years ago and held a number of leadership positions within that party, and it was always important to me we behaved differently than the Socreds, not peddling lies, exaggerations and conspiracy theories. I suppose some of this was my youthful naivete and my tendency to see the world as a binary place with good and evil absolutes, but I do believe that party did try to hold to a higher plane and I can’t help feel some of its leaders from those days would be disappointed by the NDP’s tactics in this election so far.

On the other hand, some of the charges and innuendo the NDP has been throwing around are apparently true. Up to this point, John Rustad had been a bit of blank slate for me. I was aware he was kicked out of the Liberal/B.C. United caucus because of his views on climate change but that was about all. I was also aware the provincial Conservatives had attracted some candidates who were, shall we say, out of the mainstream but assumed, after the effective merger with the Liberals/B.C. United, they would be jettisoned and replaced with more centrist candidates. I don’t know if that has happened.

What I do know is that John Rustad has allied himself with those who deny the reality of man made climate change or, at least, the idea we can do anything about it. I was also aware he had expressed sympathy for those healthcare workers who refused to get vaccinated during the COVID pandemic and felt they should be reinstated with back pay. While I fully support the idea that healthcare workers should be required to be vaccinated, especially during a once in a century pandemic, and don’t see anything wrong with their being fired for refusing to do so, this was not a deal breaker for me. But then the NDP dropped their exquisitely timed depth charge on days three and four of the campaign: the video clips showing John Rustad addressing those former employees and seeming to deny the efficacy of vaccination while expressing regret he had received three COVID vaccines. What’s more, they showed him saying he bought into some of the weirdest conspiracy theories around the pandemic, specifically that the vaccination program wasn’t designed to create herd immunity but, instead, was somehow about “controlling the population” (pardon the expression but: “WTF?”). Also, as part of his attack on vaccination and B.C.’s response to the pandemic, he singles out Dr. Bonnie Henry as the author of much of this alleged malfeasance and pledges to fire her if he is elected Premier. I disagree with Dr. Henry on the province’s appoach to the toxic drug/overdose crisis and, if a new government takes a radically different approach than what she’s recommending she may not be the best person in the job of Provincial Health Officer, but that’s a far cry from saying her performance during the pandemic warrants dismissal. I would argue the exact opposite, citing evidence that B.C. performed as well or better than any other jurisdiction in Canada during the pandemic, and that was at least partly because of her inspired leadership. This also reminds me of the reckless populism of our Alberta neighbours where the current Premier campaigned on exactly the same thing, i.e. firing the Provincial Health Officer for her role in leading the province’s respsponse to the pandemic. She was fired and the hounds baying for her scalp were temporarily sated. This is not the future I want for B.C.

This also prompted me to remember one of the other positions John Rustad took prior to his ascent to being the primary opposition leader. Specifically, his view that students in B.C. schools were being taught “what to think, not how to think” which is probably a distinction without a difference but does echo some of the MAGA gibberish around schooling and book burning in the United States. It appears that, if elected, he would reach into the classrooms and try to bend the curriculum to his will which, by the way, would simply mean teaching a different version of “what to think” or, worse, providing no instruction at all on some key subjects.

The narrative the Conservaties offer about John Rustad is that he’s a nice guy. In fact, one of their first ads features his wife detailing her struggle with cancer which resulted in her being unable to have children, and showcasing her husband as a loving, supportive spouse and uncle. That may well be but it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t implement measures that hurt many British Columbians. The closest comparison I can get may be with Bill Vander Zalm who was Premier from 1986 to 1991 and who allowed his conservative religious beliefs to intrude into the government’s response to the then surging AIDS epidemic, slowing and, in some cases, stopping an effective response. I have no doubt some British Columbians died because of that, and yet he seemed like a nice person (full disclosure here: I never met him).

So, here we are only a few weeks out from the election and faced with an almost impossible choice. On the one hand, we have an NDP government that has failed on several key issues and that, in the election, is showing the moral backbone of an amoeba while, on the other, we have a party leader who seems to ignore science and the best advice of experts, and who, as Premier, might take steps that could seriously hurt some British Columbians. I wish I lived in one of those ridings where former Liberal/B.C. United MLA’s are running as independents (is it too late to move to West Vancouver?) because the best possible outcome might be a minority government dependent upon those independents to govern.

So, I still have several weeks to make up my mind, several weeks where there will likely be more bombshells about John Rustad, where the NDP will abandon whatever long held “principled” positions in pursuit of votes, and where John Rustad might, just might, surprise us and set the record straight (although god knows how he can at this point).

One thing is certain though: I will vote and you should too.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified when 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.

Why Do Canadians Dislike Donald Trump?

Opinion polls taken in Canada over the past eight years have shown a consistent and often intense dislike of Donald Trump by a very large majority of Canadians. Many of these polls register up to 80% dislike for the past President and current Republican candidate and, in some significant regions of the country, the percentage gets close to 90%. As always, Alberta, Canada’s answer to Texas, is an outlier but, even there, strong majorities consistently react negatively to him. Which got me wondering: why is that?

Canadian and American similarities are so many, we often forget there are some fundamental differences between the two countries, their histories and their populations. Many Canadians, myself included, have family on both sides of the border, connections that go back generations and, at least until 911, for most the border scarcely existed as a barrier. I remember when I lived in Windsor Ontario and had to cross the border to Detroit almost daily being waved through with a smile whether going or coming back no matter what crossing I was using.

It’s fair to say most Canadians are genuinely puzzled by the allegiance millions of Americans show to Donald Trump. No matter how we approach the question, it just doesn’t make sense to us. That suggests a fundamental difference between the populations of the U.S. and Canada although I acknowledge there are many Americans facing the same quandry. What’s more, many of us have relatives and friends in America who support Trump, people who, until recently, we thought were virtually indistinguishable from us, which makes their allegiance even more puzzling.

Of course, there were policies and actions taken by Donald Trump as President with which Canadians disagreed, including the profound disrespect he showed for Canada and its leaders during and after the G7 meeting hosted by Canada, his apparent willingness to destroy the Canadian economy during the renegotiation of the NAFTA treaty, something one would hardly expect from our closest ally, neighbour and friend, his undermining of NATO that, in Canadians’ view, has been the bedrock of peace and security for the past eighty years, his cozying up to tyrants and dictators from Vladimir Putin to Kim Jung Un to Xi Jinping, and his general view that everything in life and relations between people and nations is transactional with a certain winner and a certain loser.

So, yes, there are many policy and stylistic issues that Canadians disagree with Donald Trump on, but one could argue that, in the long history of relations between the two countries, there have been other examples of deep disagreements without, it seems to me, the same level of animus by Canadians as exists towards him.

Part of the answer lies in the founding documents of the two countries. In America the slogan is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” with no reference to the collective. In Canada it’s “peace, order and good government”, suggesting a much less individual focused society with much more emphasis on stability. And Donald Trump certainly doesn’t represent stability while also advertising the worst excesses of selfish behaviour. In fact, he represents that part of the American experience Canadians generally abhor: the carnival barker; the evangelical preacher; the garish display of excess; the happy embrace of violence, and a complete disregard for norms of civility and community. So, in a real sense, the starting points are different and that helps to explain the views, but probably not the animus. That, I think, comes from a deep and very personal part of the Canadian psyche.

Like many Americans, Canadians are taught to be respectful of each other and to emulate behaviours that, by most standards, represent the best in the human experience: civility; good manners; accepting differences between people and groups of people; abhoring violence; finding compromise during conflict and generally valuing each person for their individual worth. And while I know these virtues are not unique to Canada, and that a great many Americans hold them too, it seems obvious now that many do not. Canada’s historical experience has profoundly shaped Canadians’ view of how their society should work and the role of each individual in it. A country founded on compromise between the descendents of the two European super powers of the seventeenth century, Great Britain and France, learned very quickly how to work together in the face of an often harsh and hostile environment and world. And that approach continues to this day, profoundly affecting the values of Canadians. In fact, as Canada has become much more diverse in the past decades, the need for that kind of view and approach has increased and, by and large, that is reflected in Canadians’ everday behaviour.

That doesn’t mean all Canadians are paragons of virtue and good behaviour. They most certainly are not. We have our fair share of sociopaths and narcissists and people who, for whatever reason, don’t want to play by the rules. The difference, though, is that, in Canada, not only are they not celebrated but, in fact, face profound disapproval and, as a result, generally have the good sense to suppress, or at least disguise, those antisocial impulses.

But there’s more. To Canadians, Donald Trump is an insecure, selfish little man; a narcissist who’s very existence depends on unending validation by standards that, to most adults, are ridiculous. He seems completely unaware of what he looks like to the rest of the world, absolutely consumed by the most trivial matters. And yet, tens of millions of Americans support him either because they are blind to his glaringly obvious faults or because they share those faults and behaviours themselves. Perhaps his worst contribution to America is giving permission to the darkest, most unattractive parts of American society. And so we see it expressed with startling pride, whether in Charlottesville, or on January 6, or in the seemingly endless torrent of mysogyny, homophobia, racism and anti-intellectualism that passes for public discourse in some dark corners of the American community.

There have been so many occasions when, if Donald Trump was in Canada, his political career would have ground to an abrupt and fatal halt. The Access Hollywood tape (“grab them by their pussies”); the “very fine people” reference to Klansmen and anti semites in Charlottesville; paying hush money to a porn star for sexual encounters while his wife was pregnant; the staggering incompetence during the worst pandemic to strike America in a century (injecting bleach); being found libel for sexual assault; being convicted on 34 felony counts; being fined nearly half a billion dollars for business and tax fraud in New York; indicted for election interference in Georgia; indicted for illegally taking government documents; indicted for attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election. The list goes on and on and yet, for millions of Americans, none of it matters. And that’s why, for Canadians, we look at our American friends and relatives who are part of the MAGA movement and wonder whether there really was something to the “The Body Snatchers”. How else to explain the unexplainable?

Canadians dislike Donald Trump for many reasons, including the chaos he brings to the world stage; his past treatment of Canada; his racism; his mysogyny; his seemingly endless quest to upend the American constitutional order; his insecurity; his narcissism; his bullying; and his vulgarity. But most of all Canadians dislike Donald Trump because he has soiled the image of our closest neighbour; our best ally and our friend.

Just sayin

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

Election? What Election?

With all eyes on the U.S. presidential election and, to a lesser extent, Canada’s 2025 election, we seem to have lost sight of the fact B.C. is having a provincial election very soon. In fact, it is only two months from yesterday on October 19th. And it could be a very consequential election although anyone saying that even six months ago would have seemed off base. While it is still the NDP government’s to lose, that is no longer out of the question and for circumstances few if any could have foreseen.

The recent prevailing wisdom was that the right/centre vote would split between the Official Opposition, the B.C. United, and the Conservatives, ensuring an NDP victory with a mere plurality of the votes. I’m no longer convinced that is the case. The most recent polling shows a tightening race between the NDP and the Conservatives with B.C. United relegated to third or, in some polls, even fourth place. How the once mighty Liberals, now rebranded as B.C. United, ended up being marginalized will undoubtedly be the subject of many future political science papers and seminars although most of the answers are pretty plain to see. First, there was the renaming (or “rebranding” as the newspeak would have it). Why, a party that successfully ruled the province for sixteen years and that would have extended that by another four six years ago but for the alliance between the tiny Greens and the NDP, believed a name change was a good idea escapes me. I speak as someone who voted for the Liberals through both the Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark years and who considered himself on the “left” side of that coalition, and who had no confusion over the relationship between the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals or, for that matter, the federal Conservatives. And yet we were told the confusion was costing votes, particularly in the face of the resurgent federal Conservatives. So the name was changed, adding to any confusion that may have existed before. And, as someone on the left side of that coalition, I couldn’t help but feel this was pandering to federal Conservatives with little regard for the rest of us whose views would likely now be devalued.

Then there was the expulsion of Liberal MLA John Rustad from the Liberal caucus because of his views on climate change, views that are undoubtedly shared by many of his constituents in the Peace River. He then went on to join and lead the Conservatives, beginning a slow drip of defections from B.C. United.

While this was happening in B.C. the national political landscape was changing as Canadians tired of Prime Minister Jusin Trudeau’s Liberal government for too many reasons to itemize here. And just as that is true in the rest of Canada, so too is it true in B.C. where the national Conservative resurgence is creating coattails for the provincial Conservatives.

These, and the emerging policy differences, created fertile ground for a Conservative rebirth in the province and that is happening, including the possibiliity they might win the next provincial election. Of course the split vote between the Conservatives and B.C. United will allow the NDP to win some ridings that would otherwise have gone to the Conservatives but, if current trends continue, it isn’t impossible to see a complete collapse of the B.C. United vote with mass defections to the Conservatives. That is the NDP’s worst nightmare.

If anyone had suggested I would be considering voting Conservative provincially even six months ago I would have wondered what they were smoking but, as the issues in the election crystalize, and with the realization B.C. United’s time has passed (if it was ever even here), I am giving them a closer look. That’s because on a number of critical issues I give the NDP government a failing grade (full disclosure here: I voted NDP in the last provincial election). That isn’t to say they’ve failed on all fronts and, in fact, on some are doing as well as any government in the country (the housing crisis comes to mind) but on several issues I care deeply about they have not only failed but, in at least a couple of cases, have made the problems much, much worse . So, for me at least, the issue is will the Conservatives do any better and, also, are there skeletons in the Conservatives’ closet I should be concerned about?

Those of you who read my blogs know I am deeply upset at the deterioration of our communities as a result of rampant drug use and related disorder and crime on our streets. And on this issue the NDP government has not only failed miserably but has taken steps that made the problems much, much worse. I’m talking about the experiment of legalization of illicit drugs that, while it has been partially reversed, has had a terrible impact on our cities and towns. Where I live in the downtown core of Vancouver the evidence of the use and abuse of drugs is everywhere, whether it’s unconscious people lying in the middle of sidewalks, addicted people urinating and defecating in public, seemingly crazed people railing at the world, significant increases in property crime or, worst of all, random and unprovoked attacks on regular citizens. How anyone could have embarked on the project of decriminalization without thinking about the effects on the rest of the community is beyond me and is almost certainly a result of the overvaluing of the rights of drug users over those of everyone else. It’s not just a failure of policy, it’s a failure of imagination and leadership and the government must be held accountable for it.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in the field of battling the current drug crisis but I do know a failure when I see one and our current approach just isn’t working and the blame for that lies largely with Victoria. We in B.C. seldom look to our neighbours in Alberta for guidance on public policy issues and, admittedly, sometimes what goes on in that province seems right out of a Looney Tunes cartoon, but on this issue perhaps we can learn something. There’s no question in my mind that the role of treatment and enforcement have to have at least as much importance as preventing overdose deaths and that requires a fundamental rethink of our approach as well as the commitment of appropriate resources to move forward. Of course we will hear from the many vested interests and naysayers who will bemoan the loss of addicts “rights” but my answer to them is simply “stand aside because we are coming through”. Enough is enough!

The second issue where I think the NDP deserves a failing grade is on healthcare, something I know a bit about. I am at the leading edge of the Baby Boomers who are retiring and entering that part of their lives when they require much more medical care than other population cohorts. The failures we are witnessing today will only get worse long before they get better unless we do a fundamental rethink of how we deliver medical care in this province. While the NDP government is throwing enormous amounts of money at the escalating crisis, that’s not even going to be a stop gap as long as we restrain ourselves within the orthodoxies of Canadian Medicare. The Conservaties have unveiled proposals that will help although, in and of themselves, they will not fix the long term and structural problems, but for people waiting to see a doctor or to get a consult and/or procedure there will be a significant improvement. For a long term fix we need political leaders willing to question some of the largely unfounded verities of the Canadian Medicare system and look to other jurisdictions for ideas on how to make the system work as it was originally intended. The NDP is apparently incapable of that work, perhaps because the mythology of the CCF/NDP and Medicare is so fundamental to its self image.

The third issue where I think the NDP deserves a failing grade is on climate change and our response to it. That may seem paradoxical because certainly on the surface, much of what it has done is cloaked in the language of fighting man made climate change. The problem with that, though, is that the NDP government fundamentally undermined the most important initiative governments could take in combatting climate change when it came to power and made changes to the carbon tax. The carbon tax was introduced by the Liberals under Premier Gordon Campbell, at the time the first such tax in all of North America. It was to be a free market tool to persuade consumers over time to make more climate friendly choices in their purchases and activities and, fundamental to its long term effectiveness, was that all revenues were transparently returned to the same taxpayers who were paying the tax. Without that important caveat, no one should have reasonably believed the tax could increase and continue public support. That tax and approach was continued by Premier Christy Clark and her Liberal government although, on a couple of occasions, they did sensibly pause the scheduled increases in response to economic pressures. However, when the NDP came to power six years ago everything changed. Motivated I guess by the ideological belief that governments are better able to decide how people should spend their money than ordinary taxpayers, they changed the tax so that only a portion of it would be returned to taxpayers and, even that, only to some taxpayers. The rest of the revenue was available to fund whatever pet project de jour the government wanted to fund so long as it had some veneer of fighting climate change. At the time of this change I predicted that it wouldn’t be long before there was a rebellion against the tax and, indeed, here we are today. It’s certain the carbon tax is now going the way of the Dodo bird, whether with the election of a Conservative government federally or with the election of one in B.C. And that is on the NDP.

I have no idea what will replace the carbon tax although I’m sure there will be something, if only because it would be intolerable to our trading partners for there not to be. I am also encouraged by former Green Party leader Andrew Weaver’s comments about John Rustad and the Conservatives, suggesting as they do that a provincial Conservative government will take climate change seriously and will find new ways to combat it.

The fourth area I give the NDP a failing grade on is managing the province’s finances. When the NDP took over government from the Christy Clark Liberals, B.C.’s finances were the envy of the country and, for the first few years under then Premier John Horgan, that continued as the government seemed genuinely to understand the importance of balanced budgets and controls on government spending. That all changed with Premier Horgan’s resignation and his replacement with the NDP government of Premier David Eby. The first sign of this was the govenrment’s rush to spend billions of surplus dollars left to it by its predecessor rather than using it to pay down the provincial debt. That approach continues as the government now projects spending leading to sharp increases in provincial debt levels. As a result there have already been two credit rating downgrades in a year by the S&P Gobal ratings agency. A number of my NDP friends tell me with all sincerity that government debt and deficits really don’t matter and they offer some combination of quasi economics mumbo jumbo to bolster that position. The problem, however, is that we know from history that is simply not the case. At best, government debt acts as a drag on the rest of the economy and, amongst other things, contributes to higher interest rates and costs and, at worst, leads to the type of economic crisis the government of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin had to confront in the nineteen nineties. But those memories seem to have evaporated as we drift towards future fiscal problems and crises.

So, am I giving the Conservaties a closer look for the October provincial election? Yes I am. Whether I ultimately vote for them will be determined over the next couple of months. Let the games begin.

Just sayin

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

Unsafe Cities

Several days ago I was shopping on Davie Street in Vancouver’s downtown core and while I was feeding a parking meter a crazed, large young man rushed down the street, waving his arms aggresively, and screaming threats. He wasn’t aiming them at me particularly but at that moment I was afraid. Although I am still a fairly large man, I am seventy five and my ability to defend myself is limited. Later I thought maybe I should carry a heavy cane in case I needed it to ward off an attack which got me thinking about the state of my city, Vancouver and, for that matter, so many other cities across the western world.

It has become an almost daily occurence in Vancouver where a drug addicted, mentally damaged person assaults someone. And that only includes the attacks that are reported. On the same day as my experience, a young woman who was pushing a baby carriage was chased and nearly assaulted on the seawall in Yaletown. Fortunately, passersby intervened and protected her. The police were called and they picked up the potential assailant and took him to jail only to release him shortly thereafter because of a lack of charges which, presumably, allowed him to continue his rampage elsewhere. Several days earlier another crazed and, presumably drug damaged, man stabbed two people along Granville Street, including the intersection with Davie. That assailant is still at large. At about the same time, another stabbing occured further up Granville. The police arrested the suspect and I presume, though I do not know, he is still in jail. These attacks are no longer the exception, they are now the norm. And this is intolerable.

I moved to Vancouver as a teenager over sixty years ago. I have no recollection of people begging on the streets, of homeless encampments, of crazed and violent people running rampant when I was growing up in the city. Even east Hastings, while not the nicest place in the city, was safe to walk through. But somewhere along the way, something changed.

Of course this is not unique to Vancouver or Canada. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, has issued an order to remove homeless encampments across the state. Anyone who has been to San Francisco, LA or San Diego in the last few years will know how rampant those encampments are and how they have alienated whole districts of those cities for other citizens. It is estimated there are 180,000 people living in homeless encampments in California which makes Vancouver’s problems seem minor but we are catching up quickly. But ordering their removal raises the obvious question: “where are they going to go?”.

The question I have is: how did we get here? How, over a relatively short span of time, did we move from a mostly non existent problem to one that is making our cities increasingly unliveable? There are people better equipped than me to answer those questions but I’ve heard a number of theories, most of which seem inadequate to explain the problem but almost certainly add to the complexity of it.

The mass deinstitutionalization of people with mental disorders in the 1980’s, with inadequate or non existant support structures in place to look after their needs in the communities they were released into, certainly contributed. This happened all across North America and, in Vancouver, is best illustrated by the closing of Riverview Hospital in one of its suburbs. While that almost certainly had an immediate and noticeable impact, it doesn’t fully explain the scope and complexity of the problem even then, not to mention now thirty years later.

The rising cost of living in these cities has also contributed to the crisis. Why costs rose so dramatically in them differs but the end result is similar. And that is especially true for housing costs, particularly in Vancouver, where housing costs are now stratospheric compared to the average income in the city. A significant contributor to those costs is international immigration, particularly the influx of wealthy Asians seeking a safe haven for their money, if not their lives, in Canada. And it’s not just wealthy individuals, as Canada’s immigration policy has leaned so far into encouraging immigration that the inevitable and, one would have thought, predictable strains on the country’s ability to provide housing and basic services such as medical care are severely testing Canadians’ traditional support for immigration.

And then there’s the drug crisis. It’s hard to determine to what extent this is a cause or an effect of the other stressors, but there’s no doubt it is now a signficant reason for the chaos and random violence on our streets. It’s not just people who are drugged but also those who are both psychologically and physically permanently impaired because of their drug use. I say “permanently” because it seems to me that, for some at least, there is no possible recovery from the state they are now in. And these are likely the most dangerous to the other citizens of the city.

While important, all these seem secondary to something else: the fundamental change in how capitalist societies organize and reward work. For decades now we’ve been assured that globalization would be a tide that would lift all. While it is likely correct that it’s contributed to the dramatic reduction in poverty in countries like China and India, as well as large areas of the global south, it has had the opposite effect in the major western countries like the United States, Canada and much of Europe where well paying, often union, jobs have been lost to “offshoring” where labour costs are much lower. As this was happening we were assured that new “knowledge based” jobs would replace them but, as I think should be clear by now, expecting workers in industries like manufacturing and resource extraction to pivot easily to these new jobs is largely unrealistic, at least for current workers. And so there has been the loss of, for lack of a better term, lower middle class jobs and incomes leading to the breakdown of families and, ultimately, the despair on our streets. For both strategic and political reasons, countries are now trying to repatriate some of those industries but, given the goal of lowering costs, still accept the disappearance of many of them to low wage, albeit friendlier, jurisdictions. Even if there was a wholesale reversal, the damage is done at least for a generation and, without some kind of dramatic intervention, much longer.

What we are witnessing is not just a failure, but the possibility of civilizational collapse. Not all at once. Not with a French Revolution type overthrow. But rather with a slow grinding down of the bonds that cement our societies with the increasing isolation of the “haves” from the “have nots”. We are already seeing examples of this, particularly south of the border in America.

There hasn’t been this type of income discrepancy in the western world since the days of the “Robber Barons” in America. In fact, I’m not even sure that was as great in these days when a very few are multi billionaires, with some testing the stratosphere of trillionaires, own an enormous percentage of the wealth being created. And, as history tells us clearly, this cannot continue or, for greater clarity, it will not. The only thing we might have some control over is how it will end and, even then, the acceptable options are limited.

I have little faith in the religion of government taking over, making choices for everyone, deciding who is going to be a winner and who a loser. And I have great faith in ideas of individual liberty and capitalist free will. That said, even the least regulated societies and economies, if they are to succeed, need some guardrails and, absent anyone else, that’s where government comes in. What is striking across the western world today is the lack of leadership on this issue. In Canada, neither the Prime Minister nor his likely successor are arguing for the type of fundamental changes necessary to get at the root problem of income disparity. It’s probably true that a relatively small country and economy cannot go alone on this but to not even be raising the issue strikes me as sleepwalking to disaster.

I’m not qualified to offer the answers on how to rebalance the distribution of wealth in advanced, democratic, capitalist societies without undermining the very forces that have made those societies economically successful. However I’m pretty confident it would start with reforms to our taxation systems that ensure the wealthiest amongst us pay their fair share. I’m also interested in the idea of a guaranteed minimum annual income, one that would replace all the boutique programs that we now have including Old Age Security, Welfare, all other income and housing supplements etc. The current programs cost tens of billions a year, if not more, and while their elimination probably wouldn’t fully cover the costs of a guaranteed minimum annual income, they would go some distance in that direction. I do understand the critics who claim such a plan would be a disincentive for people getting ahead, working hard and succeeeding. But I wonder if that’s really the case. I’m not suggesting an income that will be particularly comfortable, just one that ensures all Canadians have a roof over their heads, clothing on their backs and food on their tables.

In the meantime we should be addressing the immediate problems of homelessness, drug addiction and general civic disorder. And we should do so in a way that is effective, not one that genuflexes to the orthodoxies that claim the rights of drug addicts and petty criminals somehow supercede the rights of everyone else to have an orderly and safe city. As for the bigger problem, it sure would be nice if some mainstream politicians at least showed some awareness of the challenges in front of us because the alternative is unthinkable.

Just sayin

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 ont he bottom right side of your screen when you open the blog.

America: Rushing to the Edge

I just spent five days in America. Actually, to be more precise, five days in New York City which, in so many ways nowadays, seems remote from much of the rest of the country, and trying to gauge the political climate from reactions in the city is obviously fraught, with all sorts of limitations. That said, there were some telling things to note.

Perhaps most significant was the sense of exhaustion coupled with a kind of existential dread that Donald Trump might well return to the White House. And the endless coverage of his every move does nothing to diminish that. My friends in New York certainly despise him and will do everything they can to prevent his election but that bumps up against the harsh reality there are forces at play in the country that may propel him to victory.

This isn’t the first time America has come face to face with its inner contradictions, with the competition between nativism, selfishness, greed and racism, and the ennobling spirit of liberty, equality and human rights. I’m not sufficiently versed in early American history to cite pre-twentieth century examples although I expect they exist. Perhaps the closest parallel to what is happening today is with the 1930’s when the “America First” and isolationist forces led by people like Charles Lindbergh effectively blocked American support for the war against fascism until America itself was directly attacked at Pearl Harbor. This was motivated by an isolationist bent and a not so subtle sympathy for the goals and practices of the fascists. But for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it might have worked and the world order dominated by western liberal values and democracy we have taken for granted for the past eighty years might never have come into being.

There are a number of theories why this conflict is so acute today, but what is indisputable is that it is coming to a head in the 2024 election where some of the ugliest elements of America are going toe to toe with Americans that support liberal democracy. For outsiders like myself, as well as many Americans, it is unfathomable the contest is even close. But it is. Very close. And January 2025 could see the beginning of the end of America as the “essential nation” as well as the world order that has allowed it and so many other countries to prosper and grow.

And it’s not just America’s role that will change. It’s likely that if the MAGA Republicans seize control of the country despite the majority of Americans voting against them, and if they then proceed to implement their radical right wing and corrupt agendas, the country will break. It’s hard to imagine the large, populous and wealthy states like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, as well as the rest of the west coast, the midwest and the northeast standing idly by as their most cherished beliefs and rights are assaulted. The dictators in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang are smiling.

I’m not sure I share the pessimism of some of my American friends concerning the pending election. That comes partly from my innate trust in the many good people in America, and the desire (wish?) they reflect the majority. Actually, I guess that part is indisputable. There’s little doubt the Democrats will win the popular vote but the details of the American electoral system don’t guaranty majority rule (nor, for that matter, does the Canadian system). One other thing is the emergence of polls showing a significant shift amongst older voters to the Democrats and President Biden. These are his generation and are reliable voters who, typically, support Republicans.

Winston Churchill once said about Americans: “Americans will always do the right thing – after exhausting all the alternatives”. Maybe. But just because America finally joined the allies in what is now regarded as the last “good war” doesn’t mean that will always necessarily be the case. The stakes couldn’t be higher, particularly if you take seriously the threats Donald Trump and his enablers are making on the campaign trail. And the ramifications will reach far beyond America’s borders, perhaps affecting Canada the most although all we, as Canadians, can do is sit and watch and hope.

Just sayin

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 on the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Ruffling a Few Feathers

On April 14 the Government of B.C. and the Haida Nation signed an agreement confirming Aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwaii. It grants title to the entire archipelago to the Haida Nation and creates a process and timeline for its implementation. This is one of several such processes the government is engaging in with native bands in B.C. that are outside the treaty negotiation process and that may result in ceding vast swaths of Crown land to the various native bands. The Premier and his ministers repeatedly claim the agreements will have no effect on non native land owners on those lands, although that remains to be seen. B.C. is somewhat unique, given its lack of treaties with native bands, but the steps it is taking may still have significant implications for other provinces.

This process is taking place at a time when Canadians are being inundated with claims their country is, and always has been, deeply racist and, in its past at least, genocidal. This is the culmination of two decades of indoctrination by those advocating for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (“DEI”), backstopped by an anti-colonial/occupier narrative that divides Canadians into “victims” and “exploiters”, the victims being native Canadians who were here prior to European and modern Asian settlement, and “exploiters”, being all of us who are descended from the European and later Asian settlers. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the mythology that has grown up around residential schools in Canada. It has become the almost unchallenged dictum that the schools were created for the express and singular purpose of eradicating Canada’s native population, with the most outrageous claim being that the now empty schools are surrounded by mass graves of native children, each a kind of mini Auschwitz. And there is even support for laws that would criminalize questioning that dogma. George Orwell would have found this completely predictable. I’ve criticized this before and that isn’t the main purpose of this blog, except to note that these beliefs are a barrier to native Canadians becoming full, autonomous, independent, successful and participating members of Canadian society, and not just victims.

If the only criterion for determining who is a victim and who is an oppressor is who got here first then, to pursue that logic, we should delve deeper into the history of native peoples in Canada. I believe it’s a given they didn’t all just appear here at once, and there is historical and archeological evidence they came from Asia in waves, some on land and some by sea, over what was probably centuries. So, which now have first claim on this land? It’s almost certain some groups were displaced, absorbed or worse, while others moved further into the continent. In fact, given B.C.’s geographic location, it’s likely native groups in B.C. were some of the later arrivals.

The absurdity of using the “who got here first” criterion is illustrated further by looking at human settlement all across world. Much of it by today’s standards would be considered oppressive and wrong, fitting nicely into the settler/occupier narrative. That’s true in the British Isles, everything east of the Urals in Russia, not to mention the Caucuses, China, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa and certainly Israel. And those are only the major examples. In fact, all of human history is about population movements, with new groups replacing or absorbing earlier populations. But it is only in the Anglo-sphere where modern societies are tying themselves in knots over it (I guess I should exclude Britain from that as, as far as I know, there is no current movement to return much of England to the ancient Celtic Britons). And, in the Anglo-sphere, Canada seems determined to lead the charge, to go where few if any other nations have gone before, and damn the consequences to the future of this nation.

So why does all this matter? Well, for starters, a country that comes to despise its history probably doesn’t have much of a future and, increasingly, that is where Canada is going. We are constantly inundated with propaganda telling us Canada was a bad idea, that the men who created it were monsters, that the modern state we have built is built on the bones and blood of the native Canadians who were here first. We’ve lost sight of the fact that in one hundred and fifty years Canadians have created a remarkable, prosperous, democratic and free country, one that has few equals in human history. Instead of celebrating that we are told to feel shame and to qualify Canada’s considerable achievements with a “but”.

I fully support measures that will help native Canadians become autonomous, strong, prosperous citizens of this country. But that can only happen if the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent of the population are also respected. And that is not happening. It’s not just that Canadian history is being devalued or that native Canadians are encouraged to play the victim card to avoid any responsibility for their position and actions, but there is now a systematic effort to rearrange the ownership of land in B.C. and Canada in a way that will significantly disadvantage the vast majority of the population.

Some years ago we began hearing “acknowledgements” at the beginning of meetings, speeches, concerts, gallery shows, in fact, in virtually any venue that was publicly funded and, laterally, any that wanted to be considered progressive. You know what they sound like: “We acknowledge that we are on the unceded land of the (insert whatever native group is relevant) and are grateful for…”. Then these same statements began appearing on the letterheads and other stationary of public and private entities, a kind of Scout badge for having completed the task signifying progressive, inclusive, woke. I have always found them irritating, at first because they seemed meaningless or, worse, were holding open possibilities to native communities that could never be realized, and then because they began to move from the zones of gesture to action. And that’s where the land settlements typified by the one for Haida Gwaii enter the picture.

Most Canadians look at these settlements, or proposed settlements, and shrug, generally feeling they are a good thing and, more importantly, have little if any real effect on them. After all, we keep hearing the assurances privately held land will not be affected. All that is being discussed is “Crown Land”, which is a sufficiently obscure term that most don’t give it much thought. They should. Approximately 94% of British Columbia’s landmass is Crown Land, land that is held by the province on behalf of all British Columbians. Native groups are claiming ownership of approximately 95% of all land in B.C., including that which is privately held. So, if indeed the politicians are right and privately held land is not in play, that pretty much accounts for all the Crown Land being available for just 5% of the population.

I understand that the settlement process is at least partially driven by court rulings compelling governments to move them forward. Putting aside for the moment the argument that courts have “made law” with some of their rulings, it remains true that court rulings in Canada rely on laws passed by Parliament and legislatures. Where necessary, those laws can be changed if they result in an obvious injustice or rulings that undermine the essence of what Canada is or should be. And it is probably time to seriously consider that option on the issue of native land claims.

Just sayin

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

O Canada, Where Do We Go Now?

Canada will have a federal election no later than October next year. If current trends continue, the Conservatives will end nine or ten years of Liberal government then, perhaps even attaining the usually elusive majority in Parliament. Although the Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals by about twenty points in opinion polls, there is little real enthusiasm for them except in their base. In fact, commentators are already referring to the election choice as “choose your poison”.

Justin Trudeau led the Liberals from near obscurity back to power in 2015, replacing the tired Conservative government of Stephen Harper. He has subsequently won two more elections, albeit with minority governments, and it’s pretty clear Canadians are how tired of him, his approach and many of his policies. Without some major surprise, including a change of leader, it appears likely he will leave the Liberal Party just as decimated as it was when he became its leader. His continued insistence he will lead the Liberals through the election is yet another example of his hubris, no matter the consequences for everyone else.

So, what exactly are Canadians tired of in Justin Trudeau? I obviously can’t speak for anyone but myself, and I’ve always felt lukewarm at best towards him. To me, what I see when I watch him is performative art, including when he delivered the eulogy at his father’s funeral. Many commentators felt otherwise, citing that as the moment they realized his potential but, for me, it had all the hallmarks of a grade school drama production, you know, all sound and fury and signifying very little. And his performance as Prime Minister has done little to change that impression. In fact, it has often been strengthened (see the Trudeau family dressup trip to India).

I just don’t think there is much there there, and so when he opines on whatever topic, particularly those that have the potential to stir emotions, I see him lost in his own vainglorious drama production. And I don’t think that impression is limited to Canada. Although in the world of Trump, liberals across the globe were desperate for some kind of saviour and Justin Trudeau seemed to fit the bill with his seemingly effortless style, his colourful socks, his photogenic family, his loud pronouncements on feminism and social justice, all of which were right out of central casting. Actually, that’s not a bad metaphor because, with the passage of time, the emptiness behind the image became increasingly obvious. More and more people have come to realize it is all a performance that causes his government to focus only on those issues that fit the script, be it reconciliation with native Canadians, a seemingly endless cornucopia of new social and health programs and expressions of outrage over any issue around the world that offended Trudeau’s sense of justice or equity or, dare I say, feminism.

It’s not surprising, given its leader, this government’s programs and policies have profoundly changed how Canadians feel about their country and how the rest of the world views it. In fairness, it did a credible job steering us through the pandemic and re-negotiating the NAFTA treaty. But that’s about it unless you enjoy wallowing in endless self abnegation for Canada’s supposed past sins. Perhaps the most galling of these concerns “reconciliation” and the legacy of residential schools in Canada.

In 2021, the T K’emlups te Secwepemc first nation in Kamloops B.C. announced they had employed ground penetrating radar to locate the unmarked graves of children from the local residential school. They found over two hundred “anomalies” in the soil around the former school and quickly equated that with over two hundred graves. I should note that, since then, not a single grave has been confirmed, and not a single body recovered. And how did the Prime Minister react? With an unprecedented assault on Canada’s history and the leaders who created this country. The Canadian flag was lowered to half mast on all government buildings, where it remained for over six months, while Canada was pilloried as a land of genocidal monsters right up there with Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot. What the Prime Minister had so spectacularly forgotten, if he ever really knew it, was that he is Prime Minister of all Canadians, not just the five percent who identify as native.

And was there any moment when he said something like, you know, “sorry”; “sorry” I may have over reacted; “sorry” because even now three years later, there is no concrete evidence of the sort of mass killing that so titillated liberal elites in Canada and thrilled our international enemies? No, there was not. Instead, with no fanfare, the flags were just quietly raised one day.

It’s not surprising, given the world view of the Prime Minister and his government, that their policy priorities are mostly some combination of issues du jour and feel good, so called social justice initiatives, including new social and health programs the country cannot afford, at least if it is to also meet its core commitments. Which brings me to defence. The first obligation of any government is to ensure its territory and citizenry are secure. And on this issue, the government fails spectacularly. It’s not news to note we are living in a newly dangerous world, one where the post Second World War structures and values are not longer secure, and one where territorial aggression, one country against another, is happening. The Canadian national anthem sings about “…the true north strong and free…” but, the way we are going, maybe not for long. Across the Arctic Ocean we have a revanchist Russia building massive military bases while China is announcing it’s a “near arctic” nation, presumably giving it some claim on the arctic or at least ocean passageways through it. With global warming, the melting of the polar icecap and the northwest and northeast passages becoming navigable for longer periods each year, it’s only a matter of time before Canada’s claim to sovereignty over the northwest passage is seriously tested. Something as simple as Russian occupation of a remote island within Canadian waters would be enough. And what would Canada do? Militarily, very little. We’d undoubtedly go to the U.N. and complain, but that would solve nothing. Our best hope is that the Americans would activate a kind of northern Munroe doctrine and come to our aid. But, if that is the strategy, how utterly pathetic. While I’d much rather have Americans up there than either the Russians or the Chinese, a much preferable course would be for Canada to defend its own territory and, if it won’t, then maybe we should just simplify things and present the northern coastline and adjacent territories as a gift to America. That might even bring us some kudos in Trump’s America.

The failure to adequately fund Canada’s defence is not solely the fault of the current Liberal government. In fact, it’s been a failure of successive Liberal and Conservative governments for decades but the changes to the world order make it a much more urgent issue now, one the current government seems willfully blind to.

I could go on with many other criticisms of this government’s policies but they are all apiece and flow from a worldview personified by the Prime Minister, a view that is characterized by magical thinking, dramatic gestures and blind self confidence.

By this time, you may have concluded I won’t be voting Liberal and I hope you’re right. But, and this is a big “but”, every day the Conservatives and their Leader, Pierre Poilievre, make it harder and harder for me to vote Conservative and, I suspect, I am not alone. Much as I’m tired of Trudeau, I have a visceral reaction each time I watch Poilievre. He reminds me of a school yard bully. You know the type. The kid who wasn’t attractive or popular but who was large and who compensated for everything else by being a bully and, in every respect, was just plain mean. I don’t know who is in Poilievre’s strategic think tank but him hurling childish insults that, presumably, he thinks are clever, is poison for me. In fact, if the Conservatives were to choose a leader who was most likely to send me scurrying back to the Liberal tent poison pill Pierre fits the bill.

Confronted with my dueling dislikes for both leaders, I thought I could find solace in ignoring them and, instead, focusing on their policies. I’ve already stated my criticisms of the Liberals and, in many areas, the Conservatives look like they will adopt policies that I support. Maybe. I say “maybe” because they have offered precious little in terms of specific policies and, where they have gone into even minimal detail, it’s had the opposite effect. The first of these is the carbon tax which, to the extent of my limited understanding, is probably the most effective tool to use to combat global warming. Their simplistic mantra “axe the tax” leaves me wondering what they will replace it with because, mark my words, they will have to replace it with something real and credible, if only to satisfy Canada’s trading partners. It’s only a matter of time before those partners start placing a price on goods imported from countries not doing their part to combat climate change and, despite being a G7 nation, that will include Canada if a new government irresponsibly backs away from out international commitments.

At least with regard to climate change, I understand there is a possibility of other approaches. They may not be as easy or as effective, but they may be possible. On a different issue, however, the choice is black and white. Pierre Poilievre has now stated he would use the “notwithstanding” clause to override the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” in the case of criminal justice reform. That would be the final nail in the coffin of this most important part of Canada’s constitutional framework, conservative provincial premiers having so willingly laid the groundwork. Of course, the “notwithstanding clause” should never have been inserted in the constitution, but it was with the expectation it would almost never be used. How wrong that is turning out to be. One of the areas I incline towards Conservatives is on criminal justice reform but not at cost to the foundational constitutional document that should protect all Canadians.

And on so many other issues the Conservatives either aren’t saying or are providing mushy bromides. I have no idea whether or not they will move quickly to increase military spending; reign in federal government spending (if so, how, where and when?); or prepare us for a future pandemic. Although, on the latter, I am concerned about their, and particularly Pierre Poilievre’s, role during the last one.

So I sit here in Vancouver and watch and wait, hoping something will happen to clarify our choice in the next year and a half. The most obvious would be a decision by Prime Minister Trudeau to step down and allow a new leader and Prime Minister to lead the government into the election. I don’t know whether that would change the outcome given the huge disparity in opinion polls today, but I do know it would allow us to refocus and to have a better, clearer conversation.

Just sayin

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 bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

“From the River to the Sea”

At the height of the Vietnam War many young people, myself included, protested against it. We were certain history was on our side and that America’s actions would be rightly condemned by posterity as those of a brutal invader seeking to impose its will on a much weaker indigenous people. Even in a pre-internet world, the images of dead and dying Vietnamese galvanized us as they appeared on the nightly news and in the newspapers. And no amount of patronizing explaining to us by “adults” could weaken our resolve.

I think it is probably correct to say that history has proved us right, and I have few if any regrets about my actions opposing that war. So it is with mixed feelings that I witness the student protests on campuses against Israel’s war in Gaza. On the one hand, the distant sixties rebel in me wants to cheer them on if only because of the engagement and passion they are showing. On the other, I am appalled by their ignorant embrace of slogans and ideologies that offend the very essence of the West, and that are blind to history. And that is where there is a dramatic and stark difference between us then and them now.

The most prominent slogan of the current protests is “from the river to the sea” that demands an independent Palestine occupying all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, ignoring or, more accurately, completely devaluing the country that occupies a significant part of that land now: the State of Israel. I like to believe that most of the student protesters don’t really believe Israel should be erased from the map, with its Jewish population scattered or worse. And yet, how can they not? Even if they haven’t delved into the history behind today’s conflict, there is ample information everywhere to inform them.

A few days ago one of the “leaders” of the protests at Columbia University in New York stated that Zionists didn’t deserve to live and then, in a bizarre example of Orwellian newspeak, offered this statement as proof of his moderation because he wasn’t actually advocating killing Zionists. This is a distinction without a difference and, what’s more, advocating killing Zionists is only a tiny step away from advocating killing Jews. Some of these words are so shocking, given the history of the twentieth century, I can’t quite believe I’m hearing them. And yet here we are. They certainly wouldn’t have been tolerated in the Canada I grew up in, and I’m sorry to realize this reflects changes in Canada that veer away terribly from the country I was raised to admire and love.

Even though I have always supported robust immigration to Canada, I believe some of the shifting Canadian values are a result of mass immigration from countries with very different values than Canada’s, and where historical hatreds pass from generation to generation. And that includes hatred of Jews, although it would be foolish to think it stops there. I, as a gay man, understand the deeply ingrained homophobia that is also being imported.

Mine is the last generation with any real connection to the Holocaust and for later generations it is increasingly ancient history. But I would have thought it was such an appalling and epochal event it would still have a deafening resonance. Apparently that isn’t so and we now have university students, presumably some of the brightest of this current generation, casually chanting phrases that, in their plain meaning, would, if implemented, result in another Holocaust, this one in the ancient home of the Jewish people.

Of course all decent people abhor killing civilians, particularly when it’s women, children and the elderly most affected, but just once, it would nice to hear the protesters blaming Hamas as the instigator of all this. It knew Israel would respond forcefully after the October 7 attacks, that, in fact, it would have no other choice. That is why Hamas embedded itself under hospitals, near schools, near civilian centers, guaranteeing the maximum number of casualties amongst Palestinian civilians. In other words, it set out to deliberately use women, children, babies and the elderly as fodder, not human shields, hoping Israel would attack and deliver Hamas a propaganda victory. It obviously didn’t care at all for the lives of those victims who, by the way, are victims of Hamas’ strategy and war, not Israel’s. Why isn’t that being protested? Why isn’t Hamas as the instigator of all the violence being held to account?

These past seven months have taught me how little I know about younger generations’ political views and the role the academy plays in forming them. In fact, I seem to have missed an entire shift from what was viewed as a good and full university education in my time as a student to something completely different, where identity politics are the cornerstone of learning or, worse, a prerequisite to even access an advanced education. Each day I read articles where professors of things like “gender studies” or “anti colonial studies” or similar such titles are being quoted railing against Israel and demanding that their institutions ally themselves with misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, anti liberal and anti democratic organizations and countries. I really have no idea what it is these professors are expert in although I’m sure it’s far removed from the traditional academic disciplines, or what was considered a well rounded education, when I was young. I ended my university time for the last time in 1972 and clearly much has changed since then although maybe not for the better. It does make me wonder how my tax dollars are being spent, and for that matter, whether I should be leaving money to universities in my estate.

I understand there is a world of difference between my lived experience and that of the young protesters and their professors today but I still can’t make any sense of their complete unwillingness to at least acknowledge the plight of Jews, perhaps the most persecuted people in the history of mankind. Maybe it’s as simple as skin colour but that doesn’t seem sufficient and, even though many of the protesters would object vigorously, I can’t help but feel the ancient, poisonous hatred, anti-antisemitism, is at play.

I look back on my sixties activism, particularly my opposition to the war in Vietnam, with pride. Today’s generation of rebels and protesters may have a very different legacy, one filled with shame for, at a minimum, being complicit fanning the flames of hate and prejudice.

Just sayin,

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.