Adios Mexico?

Last Sunday Mexican authorities killed Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho”, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. They did so with assistance from the United States that has been pressuring the Mexican government to go after the cartels who are responsible for human trafficking and drug smuggling into the U.S. and Canada (amongst other places). Anyone who has witnessed the devastating effects of fentanyl will have little reason to grieve his passing. El Mencho was but the latest of increasingly violent and cruel cartel bosses dominating much of Mexico, ensuring their dominance through expressions of savagery not seen in North America in a very long time.

In response to his killing the cartel launched a campaign of violence across Mexico but most intensely in the state of Jalisco and, particularly, in Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta. Although the death toll thus far is limited mostly to cartel members and members of Mexico’s security forces, widespread damage, arson and looting has descended on both Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta with “shelter in place” orders in effect in both. Thousands of tourists are trapped waiting to see what happens next and for evacuation by airlines that cancelled all flights for the first two or three days of the violence.

Some of the responses to this violence have focussed on the American role in providing the intelligence to locate El Mencho and its pressure on the Mexican government to go after him. That, in my view, is at least partly misplaced. I live in Vancouver, the epicenter of the fentanyl epidemic in Canada, and every day I see the human toll it is taking. People who are both physically and intellectually damaged beyond repair wander the streets usually harmlessly but, occasionally, not. Much of the illegal fentanyl fuelling this epidemic comes from Mexico under the auspices of the cartels.

When I say the criticism of America is “partly” misplaced I’m not referring to America’s fury and focus on the problem, but to the likelihood that killing one cartel leader will in any way effectively address the crisis. The approach is at one with much that the Trump administration has used on several fronts, seeing every problem as a nail and the best response, a hammer.

It is not yet clear what will happen next. The cartel may escalate, although, at this point, things seem to be quieting down but, even if that’s it for now, the ensuing battle for leadership of the cartel, or challenges to the cartel’s dominance, may result in further violence.

I have been visiting Mexico for many years, first Acapulco in the 1970’s and then, after it became too dangerous because of cartel activity, Puerto Vallarta. And while Puerto Vallarta has been a welcoming and friendly place, I have always been aware of the possibility of violence and danger as a result of the cartel’s activities. Any chance I might forget that was put aside by the presence of heavily armed Mexican soldiers on the beaches and around the town. I suppose for some they provided a sense of security but for me the presence of heavily armed men does nothing to calm my concerns.

Social media feeds from Puerto Vallarta are emphasizing the return to normalcy and the fact there was little loss of civilian life. I understand the city’s need to project that image and the deep affection many expatriots have for the town they have adopted as their own over many years. But I wonder how much of that is wishful thinking in the face of the awful facts of the last few days. I also wonder who the cartel soldiers are? There are obviously hundreds of them, if not more, and it’s not as if they hibernate in some dark cave until summoned to emerge into the light to commit their atrocities and wreck havoc. Who, amongst the many Mexicans visitors interact with, are also participants in this chaos? Like most other visitors to Mexico I appreciate the warmth and friendliness of the Mexicans I interract with but likely some are playing more than one role.

Part of me wants to believe these events are “one off’s” and that future travel to Puerto Vallarta will be safe and comfortable but another is urgently telling me this is a warning that shouldn’t be ignored. It’s true there were few civilian casualties this time and, thus far at least, none of them were tourists but what happens if the cartels decide to escalate in their battle with the government, particularly if the government is seen as acting because of pressure from America? It’s not much of a leap to go from the events of the past few days to the kidnapping and killing of tourists. The previous belief the cartels wouldn’t attack tourists or the principal tourist areas because of their own financial interests in tourism is at least partly undone by this recent unrest. If their survival is at stake, it’s clear nothing is off the table.

I was planning this weekend to book both hotel and air travel to Puerto Vallarta for later this fall. I still may but for now I’m going to pause. I think that would be a wise decision for everyone.

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 appears on the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

Is This What You’ve Become America?

In an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security to Donald Trump, made several statements that went well beyond the question that was about “running Venezeula”, drawing attention back to the new National Security Policy that was issued a couple of weeks previous. If there was any hope that document was only a general statement of principles or a trial balloon, his comments laid that to rest.

Miller described a predatory America that claims hegemony over the entire Western Hemisphere, and that will take whatever it wants from smaller, weaker nations. He justified this as some kind of eternal law or rule that might makes right.

“Jake…we live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time…”

Shortly after, in an interview with the New York Times, Trump dismissed any limitation imposed by international laws or treaties, asserting his only limit was his own morality.

This, as should be clear now, is about much more than Venezuela. It signals that America will take what it wants, when it wants, regardless of another country’s legal and recognized claims of sovereignty, subject only to its ability to resist militarily. It completely ignores the human rights of the people of other nations. Essentially, it is betting that no country, except China and perhaps Russia, can say “no” to American demands.

Although some, myself included, have compared this to the gunboat diplomacy America imposed on much of Latin America in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is much more than that. In fact, a more apt comparison is with the savage imperialism that drove Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s soviet empire, Hirohito’s imperial Japan and Leopold’s despoiling of the Belgium Congo, not to mention earlier European empires spanning the globe. And today we have Vladimir Putin’s Russia seeking to absorb Ukraine and pretend it never existed, much as Hitler and Stalin did to Poland during the Second World War. This is the company today’s America has chosen to keep.

While it’s true brute strength and domination have often predominated throughout human history, those periods seldom end well for either the oppressor or the oppressed. And they do end relatively quickly and brutally. But it’s also true that another, completely different, narrative about human and national relations has persisted in response to the explosions of human cruelty and brutality. Although its roots go much further back, what we call “the Enlightenment” emerged in the eighteenth century as a compelling belief that underpinned much of what is Western and democratic today. It sees humans as essentially moral creatures imbued with intellect and a drive to collaborate and cooperate for the good of all. It has been the foundation for much that we now consider progress, whether in peace between nations or collaboration and prosperity.

Ironically, at least in light of Stephen Miller’s views and statements, those beliefs from the Enlightenment are a foundational part of the American experiment. The language of “The Declaration of Independence”, the American Constitution and its first ten amendments that form “The Bill of Rights” all reflect this Enlightenment sensibility. That isn’t to say that in its first two hundred and fifty years America hasn’t strayed from those beliefs. In fact, the original sin of chattel slavery was there at the beginning, as well as other legal structures that valued some citizens more than others. But despite those shortcomings, American democracy could always reach back to those ideals to inspire and motivate its citizens and leaders, whether in the poetic language of Lincoln, Franklin Delano Rooselvelt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. It was a touchstone or, to borrow a very American cliche lifted from the Bible, “a shining city on a hill” that allowed correction and progress towards something more perfect.

Stephen Miller and Donald Trump dismiss these ideas and values as irrelevant frippery that has no tangible place in the real world of power and strength. They are wrong. Without the vision America is just another big country, stumbling around in the dark, inflicting damage wherever it goes, sowing seeds of resentment and resistance, and destined for the dustbin of history, perhaps sooner than later. And that would be a tragedy for all of us who believe in mankinds’ better nature.

I would like to believe this is just a passing spasm, that the American people really won’t continue down this path, that it is only a tiny minority that has been horribly empowered by unique historical circumstances and the failures of the American political structures and system. But that wouldn’t be correct. Over seventy seven million Americans voted for this government with at least some understanding what they were voting for, and it’s unclear how much buyers’ remorse there really is out there. Throughout history countries have made choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, look suicidal. Why should America be an exception?

There is one other part of this that should concern people greatly. Of late Donald Trump’s statements have been particularly incoherent and inconsistent. It seems he is increasingly a narcissistic ego stuck in an eighty year old body and mind. This then begs the question who is in charge? Who is charting this disastrous course? Some have described Stephen Miller as the brains of the government and I do wonder whether he and a small coterie of invisible others are taking America and the world down this path to perdition.

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 corner of your screen when you open the blog.

“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” as Pierre Poilievre Bends his Knee to the Gilded Throne

On January 3 U.S. Special Forces entered the capital of Venezuela, Caracas, and captured Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro and his wife, taking them to the United States where they stand charged with narco terrorism. Although there were no U.S. casualties in the operation, at least 80 people died. Most would agree Nicolas Maduro and his government were/are an abomination that violates the values that most of us in democracies hold dear. His removal might ultimately be good for the Venezuelan people but the early signals are not encouraging.

Within hours of the American intervention Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre issued a statement praising Maduro’s capture and removal. Why the Leader of the Opposition in Canada felt it appropriate to issue this statement at that time is unclear but, if nothing else, it should remind Canadians why this man should never wear the mantle of Prime Minister.

Aside from the impropriety of speaking on behalf of Canadians to, I suspect, a mostly American audience, his rush to judgement ignored the obvious questions about legality and, perhaps most concerning, what comes next for Venezuela and the world. Shortly after his statement Donald Trump was announcing America would control Venezuela for the forseeable future and, perhaps most surprising, would work with the the current government in Caracas, the same goverment that was roundly rejected by the Venezuelan people in the last election and that has turned the once prosperous country into a police state and economic basket case causing over eight million of its citizens to flee as refugees to surrounding countries, the United States and Canada. And, in a remarkably candid comment, Donald Trump made it clear America’s interests are with Venezuelan oil, not the well being of its people or their right to live in a free and democratic society. In fact, Trump dismissed the opposition leader, Maria Corina Machada as “a nice lady but without the support of the Venezuelan people” despite her party gaining two thirds of the vote in the last election. And yet Pierre Poilievre, instead of waiting for the full facts to become known, or for the official comment from the Canadian government, leapt in feet first and is now left supporting gunboat diplomacy not seen in this hemisphere since the 1970’s.

But there’s more. Much more. Only days before the Venezuelan intervention, America issued a new foreign policy doctrine, one that built on the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that asserted American hegemony over the western hemisphere, including Canada. Yes you heard that right, including Canada. And right on cue Donald Trump and his advisors were threatening to intervene in Colombia and Mexico, while renewing their claim to Greenland. Suddenly it’s not far fetched to envision a scenario where America uses its military to threaten Canada if it doesn’t fall in line behind American interests. And that is the key term “American interests”. Both Donald Trump and his advisors and Cabinet secretaries have been clear there main, if not only, objective is to pursue American security and economic interests without regard for the interests of smaller nations. On its face this doesn’t sound particularly radical except on closer examination it reflects a world view not of alliances and cooperation but of domination. As many have already observed this is a return to the world of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where the words of the ancient Greek historian, Thurcydides, that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” described a world order of empire and conflict that ultimately led to two world wars that cost nearly one hundred million lives.

So, without regard for what America’s actions and doctrine mean for Canada, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition becomes a cheer leader for American intervention in Venezuela and logically any other country that seems to be drifting from American hegemony. Canadians should take note.

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

Is Mark Carney Failing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is going on?

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin

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

Lament for America

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

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

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

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

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

And then everything changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin

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.

The Most Important Election in Canadian History (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin,

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

The Most Important Election in Canadian History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin

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

“The Darkest Night Before the Dawn”

Or is it?

Day five of the second Presidency of Donald Trump and, as intended, we are being overwhelmed by an unprecedented assault on the democratic norms and traditions that have underpinned the stability and success of America and its allies. Those who claimed Trump’s second term would be more moderate than his statements while out of office and campaigning now seem hopelessly naive. Theirs’, the stubborn optimism against all evidence to the contrary and finally crashing against the reality of elevating a vindictive, cruel narcissist to the most powerful position in the world.

It’s hard to focus on any one violation of democratic and legal norms amidst the tsunami of outrages, all swathed in vulgarity, but perhaps the most telling is the clear signal that America is no longer a nation of laws. His sweeping pardons and commutations of the January 6th insurrectionists, as well as the daily drip of further pardons of convicted criminals, shows there are few if any limits that will constrain him in his exercise of Executive power insulated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of Presidential immunity. How ironic that the great republic, founded in rebellion against the tyranny of monarchs, has turned back upon itself and, in one cataclysmic convulsion, has elevated a President who claims monarchial powers, with no respect for democratic norms or limits, and who will now seek to permanently change the political and civic order to one more in common with autocracy and oligarchy then liberal democracy.

As Canadians we have front row seats to the drama unfolding next store. Not just front row seats but, for reasons that remain unclear, we have become one of Donald Trump’s favourite whipping boys as he toys with us with repeated threats to destroy the Canadian economy while insulting the very idea of Canada or being a Canadian. And our political leaders aren’t helping as they rise to his bait, apparently unable to resist microphones where conflicting and unhelpful messages are offered, not to mention the disgraceful and disloyal statements of the Premier of Alberta that so clearly undermine the interests of this country, statements that will not soon be forgotten.

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: each time Canadian leaders respond to Trump’s provocations they guarantee they will continue and escalate. Last week, it was his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos where he continued his campaign against Canada, spewing a fire hose of untruths about our trading relationship with America. And right on cue, Canadian politicians were responding, hinting at all sorts of retribution if his threatened tariffs are implemented. I spent the better part of half a century negotating contracts and, for those who believe Donald Trump is a master negotiator, he is not. He is entirely predictable, easily provoked, with a playbook that takes little sophistication to understand. Years ago, I faced a representative of the B.C. government in repeated negotiations. He was a prominent lawyer and a very good negotiator. Whenever there was any suggestion we would do something in response to the government’s positions, he would simply reply: “you will do what you will do”, leaving unsaid what would then happen. The point being, we can’t ultimately control what the opposite party will do but we can certainly prepare for it and keep them guessing. And that’s what Canada should be doing at this time, instead of politicians at all levels rushing around like chickens with their heads cut off after each “new” outrage. This is the response he wants and it undermines what Canada will ultimately do. Keep them guessing.

Aside from the side show of U.S./Canada relations, there is the bigger question of how Americans should respond to Trump’s assaults on some of the most cherished American values and beliefs. Thus far, it has mostly been silence although there are a couple of green shoots of resistance, with a federal court judge at least temporarily blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship and, perhaps most poignantly, the words of the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, who, speaking from the Canterbury pulpit in the National Cathedral, asked President Trump to show mercy to immigrants and members of the LGBTQ community. Of course her appeal was met by stony glares from the President and his wife, followed by demands for an apology but, never the less, it was an inspirational moment showcasing how people must now speak truth to power.

I suspect most liberal Americans are hiding behind the belief that “this too shall pass”. But will it? The dominant American myth for the latter part of the twentieth century was that “the Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, this spoken so movingly by the late Martin Luther King, but there is reason now to question whether that is the case, or whether the eighty years of progress since the Second World War is only an exception in the long and dark history of mankind. And I really don’t know the answer to this question although I certainly hope the first green shoots will lead to a mighty forest and a counter revolution.

Just sayin

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

Adieu Justin. Now What?

After a seemingly endless walk in the snow, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has bowed to the inevitable and announced his resignation. The timing couldn’t be worse as he emulates President Biden holding on until the last possible moment as the Canadian ship of state drifts inexorably towards the iceburg of Donald Trump’s America. While it’s not surprising he would hold on until the last possible second, even by those standards these past three weeks have shown a breathtaking lack of concern for Canada as he spent his time on a skiing vacation while “reflecting” on his future. As has always been the case, it’s all about him.

Although it has a habit of making chumps of us all, I predict history will not be kind to Justin Trudeau, and not just because of his leave taking. The country he bequeathes to his successor is less united, less capable of facing external challenges and less prosperous than the one he inherited. In fairness, there are accomplishments that are to his credit. Navigating through the first Trump Presidency and rescuing the North American Free Trade Agreement is certainly one of them, as is relatively good management of Canada’s response to COVID 19. Also, legislative changes to the Child Tax Credit have significantly reduced child poverty in Canada. Ironically, a fourth accomplishment that will serve Canada well, particularly in a world where America cannot be trusted as a reliable partner, is the purchase and completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline which allows much greater access to Asian markets for Canadian oil exports and lessens the stranglehold America had over Canadian oil. I say “ironically” because this action infuriated his enviromentalist supporters and put a significant dent in his claim to priorize the fight against climate change.

But against these accomplishments there is a litanty of failures, the first of which has to be the relentless undermining of Canadians’ sense of our history and our place in the world; an undermining that begins with his pronouncement there is no central Canadian identity, that Canada is a “post national country”, whatever that means, and that our history is at best irrelevant and, more often, shameful. And we see the results every day as signifiers of the struggles of our ancestors are devalued, destroyed or removed.

For Justin Trudeau, reconciliation with the natives who inhabited what is now Canada before the arrival of Europeans and Asians is the paramount objective, and every government action has to be measured against it. This has led us to place the interests of a tiny minority of Canadians above those of everyone else, and where that minority is encouraged to believe their ancestors lived in a prelapsarian paradise, at one with their neighours and the natural world around them, when the reality was quite different. The lives of native Canadians prior to the arrival of European settlers were brutish, primitive and short, and any other narrative is a fairy tale but it’s one that has infected much of Canada’s public discourse during Justin Trudeau’s time as Prime Minister, at least partly because he so enthusiastically embraced it and then led the country into a permanent state of mourning, or at least regret, for all that has happened over the past four hundred years.

This isn’t to say native peoples in Canada haven’t been treated badly and should be supported as they work to become fully successful members of the Canadian family. But tearing down everyone else’s historical narrative and imposing intergenerational guilt doesn’t help and has done great harm to the pride and reputation of this country. And that’s on Justin Trudeau.

And aside from undermining the core essence of what it means to be a Canadian, he and his government have failed on so many other files. Whether it’s immigration, where their blind commitment to bringing new residents to Canada regardless of the country’s ability to absorb and integrate them has made a majority of Canadians hostile to further immigration; or Canada’s role in the world, where we have been reduced to, at best, an irrelevance and, at worst, a laughing stock; or defence, where, despite dramatically rising threats around the world, they have drastically underfunded the military and, only in response to great pressure from our NATO allies, have made half hearted and probably insincere commitments to increase military spending to the minimum NATO target by 2033; and to the government’s finances, where debt and deficit targets have been blown past over and over again, they apparently believing that deficits and debt don’t matter.

Under Justin Trudeau Canada has ceased to be a serious country. Instead we claim the moral high ground and hector the rest of world over their shortcomings. No wonder Donald Trump sees us ripe for the picking.

So, no question, it’s time for a change, not some slight cosmetic makeover, but a fundamental change that returns Canada to the country our ancestors built and defended.

But there’s a problem: Pierre Poilievre, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and currently, if polls are correct, the Prime Minister in waiting. Canadians have now had a few years to get to know Pierre Poilievre and clearly many like what they see. But I suspect that is a minority with the rest turned off by his demeanour and public persona. I know I am. Of course, this is the public Pierre Poilievre and he may be charming, engaging, friendly, generous and even likeable in private but that sure isn’t the image he’s worked so hard to show to the Canadian people.

And what does he really stand for? Aside from glib catch phrases, usually on par with the discourse of a schoolyard bully, there is little if anything to go on. Get rid of the carbon tax he says (or more precisely, “axe the tax”…cute I suppose). Okay but what then? How will Canada respond to climate change? Get rid of the bureaucratic roadblocks to housing and resource development. Okay, but how? Many of said roadblocks are the result of decisions by municipal and provincial governments and, particularly when it comes to resource development, the courts often backing their decisions by The Charter of Rights and Freedom. How, exactly, is he going to undo/circumvent those roadblocks? Get rid of DEI. Well, in it’s more extreme forms, I agree, but what exactly does that mean coming from a federal government?

Of course Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can answer many of these questions in an election campaign where, one would hope, they will lay out detailed policy proposals. He might even present us with a complete personality transplant but I somehow doubt it. I suspect what we see is what we get and any hope his ascending to the Prime Minister’s role is going to somehow make him more “Prime Ministerial” is going to be disappointed.

So, as Canadians, we find ourselves in a bit of pickle. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who has demonstrated his unfitness for the job and, on the other, a Leader of the Opposition who defines his brand with nasty one liners and little, if any, concrete policy. And, despite all the polls to the contrary, that might, just might, create an opening for a new Liberal Leader. I know it’s a long shot and the best that can probably be achieved is elevating the Liberal brand to the point it can form a strong opposition although, given the vagueries of Canadian politics, keeping the Conservaties short of a majority is not out of the question.

To have any hope of a Liberal rebirth the party must choose a leader who can put some significant real estate between him/herself and the current government. That would seem to disqualify most, if not all, of the potential candidates who are members of it, particularly those who are cabinet ministers. Currently, the only two “outsiders” being mooted are the former Governor of the Banks of Canada and England, Mark Carney, and the former Premier of B.C., Christy Clark. I suspect the latter is more of a long shot than the former although she would certainly represent the most dramatic departure from the status quo.

And then there’s the wild card: Donald Trump and his persistent trolling of Canada as potentially the “fifty first state”. No one knows how serious he his about this. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t either but, given his outlook on the world, not to mention his personality, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if he does levy massive tariffs on Canada and, at that point, all bets are off for both the Liberal leadership race and the next election. It won’t be long before the single most important consideration by far will be who is best able to lead this country through what is likely to be an extended period of conflict with the United States. In that case a name closely connected to the current government, Chrystia Freeland, will come to the fore, helped by Trump’s stated dislike for her and her role in the previous renegotiation of NAFTA.

We live in interesting times.

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

Ignore him. Just ignore him.

Americans elected Donald Trump as their forty seventh President. Although he will take office on Janurary 20th, he is already asserting himself around the world and, it seems, particularly in Canada. Why he has such a facination with Canada is anyone’s guess, but he does, now trolling Canada’s leadership and its people with the claim it should be the fifty first state of the United States.

This comes as a shock to Canadians who have, for over two hundred years, viewed themselves as a friend and ally of the United States, and whose “longest undefended border” with the U.S. has been a point of pride. And this doesn’t even reference the many Canadians, myself included, who have American families. Canadians fought and died side by side with Americans in two World Wars, the Korean War and, after the attacks of 911, in Afghanistan. We have provided safe shelter for our American neighbours, whether in Tehran during the hostage crisis, or in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada after the attacks of 911. Our economies are so intertwined that attempting to separate them will result in monumental disruptions on both sides of the border. And yet here we are, with an American President elect who values none of that and seems to take special pleasure in insulting Americans’ northern neighbour.

I could waste a lot of time trying to analyze Donald Trump and his motivation but it would be just that: a waste of time. It is what it is and, from a Canadian’s perspective, the most important thing is to acknowledge that the relationship has changed, perhaps forever, and look to support and defend our country.

When adolescents troll other people they are looking for a response, the more dramatic and excited the better. And that is what is happening here. Donald Trump and his tech boy toy, Elon Musk, are having “fun” trolling Canada and watching the chaos those trolls are causing. And that’s where my advice comes in: ignore them, don’t react to them, in fact for Canadian media, stop even giving them significant coverage. I haven’t any idea whether this is some kind of carefully calibrated and thought out first salvo in a renegotiation of the USMCA (the latest trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico) or whether it’s just a bunch of immature wannabe frat boys getting their jollies, but I suspect it’s more the latter than the former.

Whatever it is, Canada must develop a carefully thought out and, if necessary, calibrated response to whatever eventualities the new American government is going to throw at it. And it must do that quietly. Thus far, we’ve seen our political leaders doing the opposite, whether it’s Prime Minister Trudeau frantically phoning Donald Trump and then rushing down to Mar-A-Lago for a hasty dinner where he and Canada were made the butt of jokes; or the various Premiers rushing to microphones to threaten, cajole, beg or publicly discuss strategy. And I guarantee you the trolls are laughing. So folks, cut it out and shut up. There’s work to be done.

Americans are telling Canadians how little they value the relationship. Well, so be it. I suspect the day will come when America regrets behaving this way but, at least for a generation, things have changed and Canada must define a new role for itself in the world, a role that increasingly separates it from America and focuses exclusively on what is in the best interest of Canada and Canadians even if that goes against America’s interests. Personally, I say this with great regret as I have held America in such high regard for so many years but it is what it is. Americans, including members of my own family, have voted for this President and his behaviour.

Message received.

Just sayin,

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