With
the holidays just behind us and New Year's just ahead the news cycle has been
sort of slow. I've been using my time to read for pleasure and play video
games. I hope everyone has a safe and pleasant New Year's celebration.
The
Washington Post is hiring five dozen more journalists. In an era where the media is contracting it is pleasing to see critical
journalism is finding a market.
The
educational YouTube channel Kurzgesagt recently released a video on
overpopulation, check it out.
The
Toronto Star gives Mayor Bonnie Crombie high marks for her stewardship of
Mississauga.
Normally
at the end of the year I write a blog post reflecting on the year. For months
now the common consensus among many is that 2016 was a trash fire of a year.
The combination of dismal international news, terrorism and tragedies, a
stagnant economy, the deaths of many prominent and beloved public
figures/entertainers, and the concerning outcome of the American elections is
enough to make it a dark chapter in the twenty-first century for many. With no
disrespect to the recent deaths, including Carrie Fisher today, if you're
measuring this year by that alone, you need to give your head a shake and consider
the recent massacres and tragedies in places like Syria, Istanbul, Orlando,
Berlin, Nice, Nigeria, Iraq and on, and on. But I digress.
And
now for a sharp, and graceless turn. Various media were important for mental
relaxation and de-stressing during 2016. I would like to share these with you and
perhaps it will encourage you to explore them yourself. I hope you can get as
much pleasure from them as I did.
Video
Games
#3
- Cities: Skylines (Plus After Dark and Snowfall DLC)
Cities:
Skylines to many, myself included, is the city-building video game that you've
wanted since you tinkered with SimCity, or sketched maps in the margin or
doodled skylines from your fantasies. Released in 2015 I purchased the game
this year and it was greatly enhanced by the release of two pieces of DLC, one
of which came out in 2016. The game allows an incredible degree of
specialization and detail work. It is incredibly open to mods. Artists (there
is hardly a better word for them) have meticulously reconstructed real cities
or designed environments the feel very real. In some ways it's more of a
sophisticated model-maker for some.
I
play the game as a city manager and simulation game. The sensitivity and
responsiveness of the game is remarkable. There aren't just roads, there are
roads of different widths and intents. You can have roads with bus lanes or
bike lanes, country roads, or arterials. The freeway system is essentially
freeform and allows an incredible degree of individuality. It permits a degree
of experimentation to figure out what configuration of roads and transit work.
Transit options include taxis, buses, trams/streetcars, heavy rail, and
subways. Properties and land grow and develop based on many factors and are
redeveloped to more sophisticated and denser buildings.
Perhaps
on the best additions to the genre is the district system. You can cater laws,
incentives, and regulations to give each neighbourhood a unique feel, just as
in real cities. Unlike SimCity the game feels grounded and far less cartoony.
When one of my cities are successful and well-designed I feel like I've created
a realistic place that could find a home in our world. The progress system and
intrinsic rewards make it a great way to invest leisure time.
#2
- Stellaris
I
am a science fiction nerd. I love the genre. When Paradox Interactive announced
their plan to make their own space strategy game I was incredibly excited.
Crusader Kings II , Europa Universalis IV, and Victoria II are among my
favourite games so I was interested to see how Paradox would tackle this
subgenre in their unique style. They did not disappoint.
Stellaris
breathes in all the major science fiction influences. Events, anomalies and
story elements are torn from Asimov, Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, Star Trek, Star
Wars, and many more. It comes across as loving homage. Players are given a wide
set of tools to create a unique species. As with Cities: Skylines mod support
is broad so already Mass Effect, Star Trek and other mods are in place to
introduce beloved species.
The
randomness in each galaxy I have played on creates exciting new options. The
tech tree means that there is not a "correct" way to play. Like the
Civilization series there are any number of ways to win. However, I would say
that playing a game of geopolitics in space (astropolitics?) there is no clear
end. Victory doesn't seem like owning the galaxy from one end to the other, in
my opinion. The answer this problem the game designers introduced late game
crises. Intergalactic invasion or artificial intelligence uprising can be the
final challenge for your space empire, star republic, or democratic galactic
federation.
If
you love science fiction and strategy I think this game offers a great deal.
Earlier this week I was playing my space empire of retile-like imperialists. I
encountered a signal from a gas giant. A group of non-corporeal beings begged
for help to migrate to a new home. I transported them to a new gas giant... but
then later they asked to move into a gas giant in my territory. I do not know
if this will go anywhere, but I love playing it out. First contact, space
battles, xenophobia, uplifting, it has it all.
#1
- The Witness
Released
early in the year I may have dedicated the most mental processing power to this
game during 2016. On the surface The Witness is a simple puzzle game but as you
play you uncover more and more meaning. There are multiple layers of puzzles in
the game and meaning. The game contains thoughts on truth and reality.
According to the designer Jonathan Blow The Witness is about truth. The world
is built to be consistent and coherent. An underlying logic holds the game
together.
Puzzles
and mysteries are at the core. Unraveling the game became somewhat an obsession
for me. At times I have considered meticulously documenting the entire game,
including things like the statues to see if there is any meaning I could
extract. Bringing up the statues I should take a moment to talk about the art.
I love the visual aesthetic of the game. I love the bright colours, the diverse
environments and the... magic for lack of a better word. There is a serenity in
The Witness.
There
is an immense sense of satisfaction in peeling back the layers of the island
and in solving individual puzzles. Portal 2 is perhaps my favourite game of all
time and The Witness is the first time I felt the same way in a long time. I
have a feeling it will stick with me for a long time.
Books
Non-Fiction
Paris
1919, reviewed on this blog, offers incredible insight in how World War I
shaped the world we live in today. For all the attention given to World War II,
the First World War has done a great deal to determine the world we live in
today. Diplomatic history is fascinating in how the petty relationships of a
handful of men determine the fate of states and nations. There is a great value
in better understanding this period.
The
Wind-Up Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi was a unique take on the future. In a world
decimated by climate change and resources are scarce the human and political
drama in Thailand is enthralling. The world is alive and horrifying, yet it
feels like a possible glimpse into our dark future. The story follows a western
business man trying to operate a factory in the corrupt Kingdom of Thailand but
through his actions, the actions of others, and random circumstances gets
caught in web of rivalries, treachery and violence.
Artificial
intelligence is a topic that captures my imagination. A series that is built
upon mystery, AI, incredible visual and social commentary is going to appeal a
great deal to me. I was not into LOST at the time, but I imagine the excitement
I felt discussing the show and theories with friends was what drove the
popularity and affection for that series. The incredible performances of actors
like Jeffrey Wright, Ed Harris, Anthony Hopkins and Sidse Babett Knudson made
sometimes flat writing gripping. Westworld raises questions that demand
reflection in regards to AI. The season was by no means perfect but it was
perhaps the most enthralling television I watched in 2016.
Honourable
Mentions: Black Mirror, Stranger Things, Pitch, The Circus.
As
2016 comes to a close the media turns its attention to reflective pieces. Here
is Paul Wells writing that Trudeau and the federal Liberals have delivered on few of their promises.
The
headline is hyperbole, but The Nation writes about the concerning fact that
Donald Trump is surrounding himself with retired generals in key cabinet posts
and advisors.
Braddish
Chagger (LPC - Waterloo, ON), the Liberal House Leader, said that the House of
Commons is not the place to discuss the evolving controversy of Liberal fundraising.
Paul
Wells suggests that the removal of Tom Mulcair from the leadership of the NDP
has echoes of Brexit and Trump.
Perhaps
there is more to this story, but it seem the Laurier Graduate Student
Association was overly sensitive and acted harshly over a joke, even if one
thinks it is ill-conceived.
A
few years ago Andrew Coyne gave a speech and he talked about why he thought
Parliament would be increasingly important and why our consensus on certain
issues meant that politics would transform. He argued that the neo-liberal
consensus would lead to new debates, debates about the nature of humanity and
address the questions that new technology has and will raised. Mr. Coyne seems
to have been disproved, at least for now, and my own theory is that the global
consensus on neo-liberalism is fracturing. Still, there are a number of issues
that the Canadian Parliament should start weighing before we are overwhelmed.
Artificial
intelligence is one of my favourite themes in science fiction. Over the last
couple of years popular culture has latched onto this concept and a number of
films and television series have come out exploring humanity's relationship
with artificial intelligence/sentience. The majority of these depictions are
negative, or threatening. The public clearly has some anxiety over the creation
of artificial intelligence. Writers like Nick Bostrom seem to be suggesting
that there are tangible dangers to AI and that precautions are required to
protect us.
As
far as I am aware there are no laws governing/regulating the development of artificial
intelligence. It would not be unreasonable, for example, to insist that
artificial intelligence be developed on air-gapped computers, or that all
programs or automatons have a built-in kill switch. The dangers of rogue AI are
so extreme that even modest precautions should be accepted at face value.
Beyond
paranoia (healthy as it may be) about the development of artificial
intelligence there are inevitable questions that will arise if we successfully
develop artificial life. If we create independent, autonomous beings as
represented in fiction like Westworld,
Ex Machina, Her, etc. what rights will be extended to them? Should any? Should
artificial beings be treated like biological citizens, or should they be
treated like, say, corporations? Corporations are legal persons but they are
not allowed to vote and do not exert other rights as living beings. If you
kill/disable an AI is that murder, property destruction? Will androids/AI be
owned? Is that slavery?
One
of the big questions about artificial intelligence is how will we tell if it is
real. Artificial intelligence designers may merely create things that are very
capable at imitating people, rather than genuine sentience. Then you get into
debates about sentience and the nature of humanity's consciousness.
One
of my concerns for years is that the creation of androids will exacerbate
issues of sexism and inhumanity. When you have the ability to exploit and abuse
things that are indistinguishable from humans the threat to broader society
seems fairly obvious. Creating intelligent, responsive beings for the sole
purpose of our pleasure and violent impulses is unsettling.
Obviously
the Canadian Parliament does not need to pass laws on these matters
immediately, but it would be wise to start raising these questions and laying
some basic regulations to protect ourselves from the worst case scenario. This
might be the perfect work for the Senate to take up. As much as this may sound
like science fiction, I think the trend lines are fairly clear we're heading in
that direction, so why not prepare for it?
Apologies
for missing the Tuesday post. I spent the day taking care of my sick niece and
then went to work. I planned on writing something up on Wednesday, but it was a
repeat of Tuesday.
Vision
Zero is a movement to end pedestrian deaths in vehicular accidents. The Toronto
Star reports on Peel Region and the risk imposed by transport trucks.
Citylab
writes about how white neighbourhoods are whiter than their metropolitan regions
and resist integration.
Dennis
Pilon writes at iPolitics that the entire electoral reform debate is based upon
a fear of voters.
Filed
under the "Wake up in a cold sweat" category, Donald Trump will soon
gain control of Voice of America, and perhaps use it as a propaganda tool for
his administration. Excuse me as I breathe into a paper bag.
Kurzgesagt,
an impressive YouTube channel, has released a video advocating that humanity
change its calendar, and I find the argument compelling.
Portland
is often held up as an ideal in North American planning. Chuck Marohn of Strong
Towns visited in October and offers up some thoughts and cold-water criticism.
When
the Liberals won their majority government I was consoled by two things: Harper
would leave office, and hopefully end constitutional rot; and Trudeau had
promised, unequivocally, electoral reform. As I have written on this blog
before, electoral reform was the animating issue that got me involved in
politics. There is growing evidence that the Liberals are preparing to break
that promise.
The
Electoral Reform Committee released its report last week. The committee
recommended a referendum on proportional representation. Though the NDP and
Green representatives provided a supplement saying that they did not believe a
referendum was specifically needed. The result may be the worst of both worlds
for the Liberals. They didn't want a referendum and prominent voices within the
party do not want proportional representation. Aaron Wherry wrote an excellent
summary of the direct fallout here. Following the report's release Minsiter Monsef began to mock and distance the
government from the committee's report saying the was disappointed that they
had not recommended an electoral system. This was rich given that it was not in
their mandate.
Monsef
further embarrassed herself and her government by mocking the formula the Gallagher Index, which shows how closely a government represents the proportion
of votes received by each party. Monsef was prepared with printed copies of the formula. This wasn't a fluke, it
was a plan. Electoral reform often wrecks on the shores of complication. For
all the problems with First-Past-the-Post it is simple. Trying to explain an
alternative quickly to a disengaged public is very difficult.
Yesterday,
claiming that the government required further consultation, https://www.mydemocracy.ca/
was launched. I would encourage any reader to take the survey, because why not?
But as you take it I think you'll find that there are some serious issues on
the questions. They fail to tease out
what voters actually want in terms of their electoral system, i.e. do you want
the House of Commons to reflect the percentage of votes the parties receive?
Should a party that does not get a majority of votes receive a majority of the
seats in the House of Commons? Perhaps I am revealing my own bias with the
second, but the questions are at times "push" questions designed to
illicit certain responses.
Canadians
on Twitter took to mocking the Trudeau government with the hashtag
#rejectedERQs (rejected electoral reform questions). It is amusing but also
disheartening because it is more evidence that the fix is in. With the
conclusion of this survey the Liberals will be well poised to suggest that a)
more consultation is required, b) there is no consensus, c) that Canadians are
content with the system as is.
If
electoral reform is to happen it will almost certainly not occur before 2019
now. Stalling by the government seems to make that clear and if a referendum is
going to happen the laws surrounding referenda needs to be updated. To be
clear, I want to give kudos to the member of the Electoral Reform Committee,
including the Liberals. At the end they seem to have engaged in the process in
good faith. I believe it is the government who is meddling now. I haven't
abandoned hope yet, but the government holds all the cards on this one.
Electoral reform will only under rare circumstances become an issue of
importance. However, PEI's recent vote may be a sign of hope, though their
government's reaction may be the ultimate warning. The status quo is hard to overturn.
Canadaland
investigates whether or not the Canadian media is falling into the same trap
with Trump and excessively covering Kellie Leitch.
Steve
Paikin writes that John Tory has shown rare political courage in supporting highway tolls.
The
new Progressive Ontario MPP for Niagara West-Glanbrook has delayed his swearing in to celebrate his victory. The new MPP is getting a lot of attention for his age and policy positions.
Jeet
Heer writes about Donald Trump's illogical statements and lies continue to
damage the American political sphere and fact-checkers are powerless to stop it.
In
the lead up to the American election and in its wake there has been
considerable debate over labels, meanings, and how we use terms and language.
It may be some bizarre combination of ignorance and knowledge of the past combines
to result in tying ourselves in knots with definitions.
Before
we jump into a more blatantly political side let's use writing about
"Facebook news posts" as an example. In most media the false and
misleading "news" posts propagated on Facebook has been labeled
"fake news". While technically accurate it ignore our context. Fake news as a term has been
closely associated with satirical programs like The Daily Show, This House Has
22 Minutes, and the Colbert Report. It communicates harmless mischief,
purposefully exaggerating, or mocking. The fake news posts are actively
misleading at best and bald-faced lies more often than not. There is a more accurate term for this - propaganda. Definition:
"Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote
a political cause or point of view." If anything the definition may be too
soft, but far clearer. Why does the media hesitate to use this language? Is it
because the word propaganda is associated with totalitarianism and the
twentieth century?
After
the Cold War and the ascent of liberal democracy and neo-liberalism ideological
labels seemed to matter far less. In North America words like communist,
totalitarianism, fascism and even socialism, liberalism, and conservatism
became fuzzier, ill-defined and less relevant. In Canada the differences
between our "left" and "right" became marginal. Then things
seemed to change.
In
the American mainstream a growing number of politicians expressed views and
positions beyond the centrist consensus but we seem ill-prepared to label these
movements. Take the Tea Party. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of
their ideology aside from the vague "right-wing", "conservative"
(absolutely inaccurate), and "populist". Populism comes up a lot, but
it is not a set of policies/ideology. Politicians from Rob Ford to Tommy
Douglas have been called populists.
This
language barrier has resulted in problems as a culture when discussing these
times. Recently the media has avoided calling a Nazi sympathizer, who
says "Hail Trump", and receives the Roman/Nazi salute from the audience calling
him a Nazi... because why? Because Nazis are a thing of the past, right?
I
do not like the growing use of the term "alt-right" because it too
has a fuzzy, imprecise definition. It really just means far-right, or radical
right-wing. As I wrote immediately after the election Trump and his supporters
may be best understood as anti-liberal. I think there is a growing case to call
the Trump's movement's radical element American fascism. To be clear that is
not descriptive of all of those who voted for the Republicans. Speaker Paul
Ryan is not suddenly a fascist because he will try to work with Trump's
presidency. As political cultures we need to come up with accurate terminology
and language to discuss our politics. Right now we are either in denial or
wandering around in the darkness. There are going to be times when the New
Right, in whatever country, will resemble normal governments, but it is
important to call out when they use nationalism, authoritarianism and jingoism
to impose harmful policies.
Martin
Regg Cohn writes that the Ontario Municipal Board needs to be reined in for the
sake of our cities.
Changes
in election laws means that Ontarians will soon directly elect their regional chairs. This could cause more trouble for local politics and conflicting interests.
Were
you to ask most historians what event was most consequential for the world
today I believe many of them would say World War I. It wasn't just the conflict
itself, but the peace that ended it has defined so much of the 20th and 21st
centuries. MacMillan specifically focuses on the six month period in 1919
during which the key negotiations took place between Prime Minister David Lloyd
George (UK), Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau (France), and President Woodrow
Wilson (USA). Never have three men been so critical in determining the state of
the world. In her introduction though MacMillan says that there was a bilateral
relationship between the negotiations at Versailles and conditions on the
ground. As much as the 'peacemakers' shaped the map of the world it had to
respond to political unrest, revolutions, and shifting military situations in
the lands they were sitting in judgement of.
Read how flawed men shaped the modern world
The
book is divided into thematic chapters focusing on different countries/regions,
and then arranged into a rough chronology. It is an imperfect method. The
developments in Yugoslavia profoundly impacted Italy and Italy impacted upon
Greece and Turkey. Discussing each in isolation can lose the thread, i.e.
because Yugoslavia's gain resulted in Turkey's loss, indirectly. MacMillan puts
considerable attention on the personalities and characters of the peace
conference. Given the degree to which personal relationships decided the fate
of nations this seems entirely appropriate.
Of
the Big Three Wilson by far comes off as the worst. In many ways he seemed to
blunder into the negotiations at Versailles. His grand notions about how the
treaty should be negotiated was not reinforced by basic knowledge of the world.
His vague commitments led to substantial misunderstanding. When Wilson and the
Treaty of Versailles betrayed the Fourteen Points it triggered outrage across
the world from China to Germany. This was further complicated by the fact that
America was a late entrant into the war and France and the United Kingdom had
made commitments to allies that Wilson had no interest in keeping.
The
blame, or perhaps more appropriately the responsibility, of Versailles and its
accompanying treaties should not be laid exclusively at the feet of the Allied
leaders. At several points the events on the ground dictated their approach.
The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was not the intent of the Allies.
They quickly embraced the successor states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia,
but how to respond to Austria and Hungary was a source of major consternation.
This was made even worse when Hungary fell briefly to a Bolshevik coup. The
Allies had no notion of how to deal with Russia or the Ottomans either, and to
a lesser extent, Germany. They did not foresee the collapse of these empires.
While
it is commonly thought that the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II
MacMillan takes a slightly different tact. It seems to me that MacMillan
suggests that the negotiations, not the treaty itself, led to resentments,
political changes and demographic tensions the helped set the stage for the
Second World War. It's a fascinating approach. The evidence is clearest for
Italy. Italy was the fourth of the Big Four and often maligned by its allies.
It sought imperial gains out of the war which the other three rejected. The
port city of Fiume in particular became a point of contention and a rallying
cry for nationalists and the proto-fascist movement. Japan learned from the
experience that they could not expect fair treatment from the European Powers
and so instead sought to create their own path in Asia going forward. Germany's
ham-fisted treatment by the Allies radicalized moderate elements and gave rise
to the myth that Germany was never defeated and delegitimized key aspects of
the Weimar government. However, MacMillan says that the terms for Germany were
not as harsh as common history would have one imagine. Her evidence is the fact
that Germany violated the spirit of the treaty immediately and quickly began
rebuilding for the next war well before Hitler came to power.
The
consequences of Versailles and the other treaties are still evident across
Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It is incredible how much can be traced
back to the First World War and the treaties that ended it. MacMillan's writing
is clear and accessible, though an understanding of the underlying geography
and the First World War would greatly aid the reader. I would highly recommend
this book for those interested in the subject, diplomacy, 20th century history,
and current events.
Following
the presidential election I started to see posts and articles about people
wearing safety pins. Out of curiosity I looked up what it was. My feelings on
it were immediately mixed. Christopher Keetly writes that the safety pin movement has far more to do with liberal and white guilt and the person wearing
it than making social change. The part of me that disdains symbolism over action is inclined to agree, at
least in part.
Tensions sparked this week in the Canadian Senate between Trudeau's point man in the
Senate and the leader of the Senate Liberals.
Ashley
Csanady writes that the two by-elections today in Ontario have evolved to
become important contests for all three parties.
The
Independent reports that the Trump transition team is considering registration for Muslims immigrants. If such a travesty occurs I think non-Muslim Americans should register in a
sign of protest, opposition and in solidarity with their fellow Americans.
Andrew
Coyne looks at how the electoral system produced a Donald Trump victory.
I
watched this video this morning, and somehow I thought it fit here. Adam Ruins
Everything is a series that came out of College Humor. The host lays out why
the common thinking on a topic is wrong. This week he answered the question
'why is weed illegal'. I found the Nixon answer
the most compelling aspect.
In
the wake of the election of Donald Trump I had some heady conversations with
friends about what the election might mean. I think it was my way of dealing
with the heady consequences of the election. Even now when I think about what
might be in store for America, North America and the world I cannot help but
feel a sense of dread. This sense was only exaggerated by the surprise of the
outcome. If you read my piece from last week I state the possibility of a Trump
victory, but I accepted the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton was on her
way to victory.
Both
the direction of the election and the unexpected outcome caused many to draw
comparisons to the Brexit referendum. How do we explain the victory of Donald
Trump? Much like the Brexit vote, people who attribute the victory solely to
bigotry and ignorance are dismissing the greater picture here. There are
proximate causes which are easier to explain but these should not be conflated
with deeper, structural causes.
Let
us briefly discuss the immediate causes. Hillary Clinton was a deeply unpopular
candidate. She may have been the best known candidate to run for office who was
not already an incumbent. She had the baggage of years of experience and
conflicts. Her greater asset, experience, was also her greatest liability. Her
gender should not be dismissed; it is possible America was less ready for a
female president than suspected. Donald Trump was the Republican candidate in a
two-party system. Since he won the nomination there was, in essence, a 50%
chance that he could win. Early reporting I watched on PBS commented that Trump
was winning like a traditional Republican, which in many ways is unsurprising.
Research in Canada has suggested that negative campaigning suppresses
progressive voters more than conservative voters. After the last 18 months it
is hardly surprising that Democrats failed to turn out in some ways.
The
more I thought about Trump, Brexit and the new right in general I began to
sense a pattern - a rejection of liberalism. By liberalism I mean the classical
liberalism defined by free markets, freedom of movement/immigration, equality
and (recently) globalization. Since the 1970s and '80s Western countries have
been moving towards a more liberal version of their economies and policies.
Sometimes this has been called neo-liberalism. NAFTA and the EU are products of
this thinking as are the pro-business, low tax ideology dominant in most
countries. This school of thought expanded with the end of the Cold War. With
the defeat of Soviet-style communism it seemed that liberal economics and
liberal democracy was ready to dominate the world.
Things
have progressed down this road, but not without consequences. In the United Kingdom,
the United States of America and Canada there have been stark winners and
losers in the liberal era. If you want to know where look at the maps of the
election results; Remain and Clinton voters tend to be concentrated in places
doing well. But a new Silicon Valley is not taking root in the Rust Belt or the
Great Plains, nor in the North of England. These regions have suffered
incredibly during the period from the 1970s to present. Deindustrialization has
stripped away their economic base and wealth. I recently heard on the news that
Trump did not win the working-class demographic, but he did win the
middle-class, who feel even more vulnerable to these changes. They're the ones
with mortgages and kids in college with debt.
Many
(fairly) have accused Trump have having confused, schizophrenic policy
positions. If you look at his stances as a rejection of
liberalism/neo-liberalism the picture becomes much clearer. Trump has expressed
anti-global sentiments, both in terms of diplomacy and trade. His adoption of
America First should indicate his thinking on America's place in the world.
Trump's supporters are clearly nationalists, and perhaps white nationalists.
Subsuming nationalist impulses to international and global organizations was a
huge component to liberalism. Trump has committed to renegotiating NAFTA,
America's most important free trade agreement. NAFTA is blamed for killing
manufacturing jobs that hurt places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,
and Wisconsin.
Much
like trade, open borders and immigration are components to a liberal vision of
the world. Liberals want a free flow of commerce, goods, and people. Both
Brexit and Trump arose in response to uncertainty of migration. I studied the
history of immigration in North America at Brock. The working class has often
had discomfort with new immigration and view them as their rivals. American
businesses' relationship with undocumented migrants is exploitative and the
reaction from those who have been living in declining areas is understandable.
That said, race clearly played a role in the feelings about Muslim and Mexican
immigration to the United States. In the case of Brexit race is less clear,
perhaps migration and migrants would be more accurate.
Anti-equity
is a harder trait to pinpoint. Obviously we could look at treatment of
non-whites as evidence, or Trump's comments about women as evidence. Questions
of equity have always been controversial in the United States. Policies
designed to address inequity are highly controversial, i.e. effective school
segregation, affirmative action, criminal justice reform.
Anti-liberalism
is not unique to Donald Trump and the Republicans. One could argue that the
appeal of Bernie Sanders is a product of anti-liberalism, just from the other
side. Socialism is not extra liberalism, in many ways it is anti-liberalism.
Looking
around the world at the rise of new right parties, the results of Brexit and
election of Donald Trump it is not too far of a leap to think that the global
movement towards liberals from the 1970s/90s is facing a backlash. Evidence has
existed for years, such as the rise of China's state capitalism and Russia's
backslide away from liberal democracy. The scary thing is that anti-liberalism
on the right is sometimes known as fascism. The last time there was a global
rejection of liberal economics and liberal democracy was the 1920s-40s. I want
to be clear, I am not saying we are short years away from a world war.
Beginning in the 20th century we have transitioned from periods of openness and
closeness on the global stage. The early 20th century was quite open, and then
the rise of socialism/communism and the Second World War and Cold War led to a
closing, until the 1970s. Perhaps we are entering a world when things are
closing. That said, new technologies likely means that things will never close
again as much as they have in the past.
Liberalism
has left many people behind, and it is not unthinkable that these anti-liberal
movements could find a place in Canada. I think this is one of the few ways to
make sense of some recent trends. Do not accept overly simplistic explanations
of election, we are motivated by complicated factors as voters. Perhaps winds
of change are blowing and who knows where it will take us.
I'm
sure many of you are tired of reading about the American election so I'll try
to make my selections good.
For
my first selection here is something different. I want to share my friend
Sabina's thoughts on the presidential election's result. She is a financial
analyst from the UK and prepared analysis for her colleagues:
For those of you still interested in reading what I have to say - from tomorrow's internal note
The most timeless analysis of American political culture was provided by Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote the following of American democracy:
“The election becomes the greatest and, as it were, the only matter which occupies people’s minds. Then political factions redouble their enthusiasm; every possible phony passion that the imagination can conceive in a contented and peaceful country comes out into the light of day… As the election draws near, intrigues multiply and turmoil spreads. Citizens divide up between several camps each of which adopts the name of its candidate. The whole nation descends into a feverish state; the election becomes the daily theme of newspapers, the subject of private conversations, the object of every maneuver and every thought, the only concern of the present moment. It is true that as soon as the result has been announced, this passion is dispelled, all returns to calm, and the river which momentarily overflowed its banks returns peacefully to its bed.”
Now the Burkean conservative in me wants to agree with de Tocqueville: the passions unleashed by this election will hopefully once again, go back into their box for the next three and half years, only to be stirred up again the next time the electoral cycle comes around. Still, there are two elements of this week’s vote that do raise discomfort.
1) Back in 2004, John Kerry had made the theme of his campaign the problem with the “Two Americas”. And of course, back then Kerry referred to the rich and the poor. But this vote illustrates that the US really is dividing into two countries as the gulf in voting patterns widens along income, education, gender, class, and urban/rural divides. Increasingly, Americans seem to live in self-reinforcing echo-chambers where they solely interact with people who hold the same beliefs and values. Combine this new reality with the news filtering capacity provided by social media algorithms and it is clear that growing parts of the country will never have to confront uncomfortable facts, or opinions. Illustrating this is the fact that, while a generation ago, the median US congressman was elected by a margin of less than five percentage points, once again in this election the median US congressman will be elected by a sizeable double digit margin. This cannot be a healthy development.
2) However one cuts it, the unique feature of the 2016 election has been the rise of the populist vote; Bernie Sanders’ insurgency was by far the best a red-blooded Socialist candidate has done in any big western democracy in recent years. Donald Trump’s solutions to the challenges confronting our societies are broadly in line with those offered by France’s National Front. Although, not even Marine Le Pen would dare propose a ban on Muslims entering France. Clearly, we have entered a new era where domestic discontent, not just in the US but across the Western World, is sky high. And behind this discontent sit factors such as technological disruption, dislocations caused by the ascent of emerging economies as industrial powers, the ageing of Western societies and the shift that immigration has caused to the cultural make-up in these countries.
And this brings us to the timeless observation by Arnold Toynbee who, in A Study of History argued that the role of an “elite” in any society is to handle challenges that allow the group to survive and so move on to the next phase of their shared journey. If bad solutions are offered up then problems intensify and rising pressures eventually trigger a change in the elite. This can happen in various ways. Needless to say, elections are by far the best case scenario (no bloodshed or destruction of property). But if elections do not trigger the required changes (e.g. France during the Fourth Republic and the challenge of decolonization), then this can engender a change of regime (a distinct possibility across euro-land?), or even revolutions. Judging by Donald Trump’s likely win in the US presidential race, it would seem that the US for its part does not believe that political dynasties should be left to solve the country’s problems. Looking forward, the hope must be that the new president will rise to the huge challenges facing the US and the wider world with genuine solutions to real problems.
But I am doubtful, which is why we prefer countries and markets that have the advantage of small scale as entrenched interests tend to run less deep and finding common ground for the “shared journey” is politically easier. It is also why we prefer overweighting countries with the Queen’s head on the banknote.
Sarah
Kendzior warns that Trump's election is America's moral loss and a victory for fascism. She certainly speaks for a segment of the American public.
Today
is the day. Millions of Americans will cast their ballots to select their next
president. After two years of polling, debate and drama it has all come down to
this. I am not sure anyone in 2014 could have foreseen how this race would
shake out, but here we are. Pundits and journalists have gone on and on about
how unpredictable this election cycle has been but as we enter voting day I am
sure I am hardly alone in anxiously awaiting the results.
Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump will be competing to win the electoral college. As a
brief explanation, each state is allotted a certain number of votes based upon
its population/size of its congressional delegation. The smallest states,
Wyoming, and Alaska, for example, have 3 electoral votes and California is the
largest with 55. A presidential candidate wins the state by receiving the most
votes across the state. A candidate does not need to win the most votes
nation-wide to become president.
In
the final moments the election has tightened. This is normal. How much it has
tightened is a matter of conjecture. It is widely assumed that Donald Trump is
behind, which most polling supports. However, as was shown in the last Canadian
federal election polls can be inaccurate and how polls play out on a local
level can be unclear. This is because getting out the vote (GOTV) is a critical
component. It has been said that the Trump campaign has very little ground
game. He won the nomination through a mass appeal to voters who were often
disengaged from the process. The grassroots support then is suspect. He is
unlikely to have rooms full of old church ladies who made calls for George H.
W. Bush doing the same for him. An exceptional ground game is what won the
presidency for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
The
Clinton campaign has a stronger campaign but a dangerous problem. Her voters
are not enthusiastic about her candidacy. They fear a Trump victory and that is
driving many of them, but for some it is hard to be excited about Hillary
Clinton.
That
all said, Five Thirty-Eight, a blog that got its start tracking elections,
gives Clinton 2/3 odds of winning the election.
There is no doubt that her path to victory is clearer, but it is hardly
inevitable. One thing I worry about is that Trump voters may be reluctant to
express their support to pollsters given the negative associations he has. The
'silent majority' phenomena may be at play, or the Bradley Effect.
The American public may be less willing to accept a woman president than they
let on.
For
those watching at home, there are fourteen swing states to watch for. In order
of their polls closing: Florida, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio,
Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
Iowa, Nevada. Some of these are closer than others, but given the
unpredictability it is wiser to keep the list wide. For information on all the
polls there is RealClearPolitics.
One
of my biggest concerns going into this election is the obsession with the
presidential race. A third of the Senate, all of the House of Representatives
and number of governorships are up for grabs. I haven't heard anything on these
races. I have no doubt that a number of odious candidates are sneaking by with
help of the distraction Clinton and Trump have provided. In the fallout of the
election, assuming no crisis ensues, attention will likely turn to the new
Senators, Congressmen and Governors who America has to deal with.
This
presidential election does not reflect the Americans I know and I am sure the
overwhelming majority will be glad to have it behind them. I hope a high
turnout and lack of issues ensures that the election ends with a clear winner.
Best of luck, America, make good choices.
This
Tuesday the America people will vote to select their next president. I have
been staring at electoral college projections. Join me in my suffering.
CGP
Grey released a video talking about the mechanics of power and how dictators
and representatives maintain power. I've found
myself thinking about it a lot this week.
Two
weeks ago the anniversary of the 2015 federal election passed and in three days
the first anniversary of the Trudeau government will pass. A great deal has
changed (or not) since October 19th and I think it might be valuable to reflect
on where things currently stand. Let's begin with the Liberals.
For
the Liberals and their supporters there are a lot of things to celebrate still.
The Liberals are sitting high in the polls, the Trudeau honeymoon seems to be
continuing, the media continues to gives positive coverage and around the world
Canada and its shiny, new PM is mostly seen as positive. In my opinion many of
the voters who supported the Liberals were motivated by two main factors: the
desire for the removal or Harper and the desire for a change in tone. The Liberals
beat the NDP as the anti-Conservative Party and that is why they are in
government today. Liberals supporters may remain in line as long as the new
government does not come to resemble the old government.
While
writing that I could hear the old progressive refrain rattling in my head
"Liberal, Tory, same old story." In recent weeks the Trudeau
government has placed support that may be showing very little difference
between itself and its predecessors. The LNG pipeline in BC was approved in
British Columbia and Aboriginal representatives are beginning to feel betrayed
by this government on a number of issues. Prime Minister Trudeau recently
caused a controversy by seemingly backing away from his commitment to electoral
reform and there is a long list of promises that the Liberals have failed to
keep.
The
Liberals made, according to Trudeaumetre.ca/, 219 promises. Of those 34
have been kept, 64 are in progress and 26 have been broken. The Liberals
overburdened themselves in their platform and it is likely that the most
sensitive voters, or one-issue voters, may peel off and return to the Greens,
Conservatives and NDP. For example, Bill C-51 was a major issue in Toronto, yet
no amendments have been moved. There is no sign that the Liberal coalition is
fracturing, but it seems a growing risk for them.
A
year after the defeat I think it is hard to say that the Conservative Party was
utterly routed. The Conservatives have a strong core in the House of Commons.
In the first by-election of the forty-second parliament the Conservatives
managed to gain on their wins a year previous in Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner.
This is Conservative territory, but a stronger Liberal support would be a
healthy sign. There are fourteen candidates running for the Conservative
leadership. The healthy number suggests that there is a great deal of interest
and that it is a prize worth having. The Tories still have strong fundraising
and the parliamentary leadership has been solid in confronting issues that
matter to their supports: spending and the economy.
While
Trudeau's popularity seems unassailable at the moment, Stephen Harper will not
be on the ballot next time. A new Conservative leader will be well poised to
make at least limited gains.
The
fortunes of the Green Party are unclear. Elizabeth May had to do battle over
the soul of her party this year when they adopted a strong anti-Israel stance.
May was most effective as a critic of the Harper government. Most of her focus
has been on the electoral reform committee. The success of the committee will
dictate to a great degree the future of her party.
Finally,
the New Democratic Party. The future of the NDP is unclear at the moment. Since
the election the party kicked out Tom Mulcair, though he remains on as interim
leader. The party seems uncertain if it wants to contest for power still or
return to the role of third party and conscience of the Parliament. Fundraising
has plummeted since Mulcair was removed as leader. I think much of that is the
membership sitting on their hands, saving for a leadership contest, or to see
what the party will do next. Unfortunately, and very worryingly, there are no
declared candidates for the federal race. However, it appears that Peter Julian
(NDP - New Westminster-Burnaby, BC) will enter, and there are a few others in
the wings. Mending the party between moderate and leftist and French and
English will be a daunting challenge.
There
is opportunity for the NDP. The Liberals ran on a fairly left-wing platform, but
appear to be governing from the centre. Progressive voters will be disappointed. There is plenty to criticize, so just as the
Conservatives are minding the pennies the NDP should be minding the broken
promises to young people, Aboriginal Canadians, etc.
It
has been a dramatic year since the election and the formation of the Trudeau
ministry. I assume that things will have stabilize as we enter the second year,
but by this time next year the Conservatives and NDP will have new leaders and
once again the stage will be set for the future going forward.
The
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario nominated a candidate for the Niagara
West-Glanbrook riding. They chose a 19-year-old student over a veteran MP.
Apologies for being late, between a cold that won't leave me alone, poor sleep, and work I didn't have it in me on Thursday night to put it together. On the plus side, there are a lot of great articles below.
This piece on Kim's Convenience highlights the need
for greater diversity in Canadian media. Oddly, it's a show like Degrassi that best shows New Canada, to my opinion, in
recent years.
Strong Towns, whose
praises I sing often, recently had a week dedicated to biking. They put
together this list of all their articles. I will highlight a couple that caught my eye below.
Canadian reporter Daniel
Dale has been following the Trump campaign. Notably he reports the numbers of
falsehoods/lies he says every day. In this article he shares what he has learned.
Over
the last couple of weeks it is hard to watch the American election and not feel
like at the presidential level (at least) there has been terrible failing of
their system. Polling broadly suggests that both parties, somehow, managed to
nominate the least liked candidates in their history. It's as though they
wanted to see what a LBJ vs. Nixon match up would look like in 1976, though
those comparisons are far too charitable.
When
I think of the Americans I know I have a hard time seeing them in either of the
candidates purporting to represent them. Obviously there is a difference of
degrees here. Clinton's checkered past as a career politician, as was recently
written in the Huffington Post, is likely exacerbated by the fact that she is
the first woman to run for president. I think that's a simple excuse and more
could probably be gleaned from the long public life and her husband's
presidency. Clearly, by far and away, it is the Republicans who have
disappointed their electorate.
Conservatives
and critics of the Obama administration have valid opinions that should be
voiced in the public sphere without being subsumed by sexual assault
allegations and tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. The transformation of the
Republican Party over the decades has left a growing segment of the electorate
without a coherent voice. That all said, I have written previously that Donald
Trump is clearly speaking for a segment of the American public and those who
dismiss them do so at their own peril.
Perhaps
as America becomes a majority minority nation one must consider if the
two-party system still serves them well. Previously there were strong factions
within the parties, i.e. moderate New England Republicans, Dixiecrats, etc.
While on a national level the parties were not necessarily consistent the local
variation allowed for political competition to a certain extent. With a
diversifying population and interests it is hard to imagine that two parties
can successfully encompass them all. For instance, on a political compass
calculator Hillary Clinton is considered a right-of-centre politician. Yet the
Democrats have to find a way to bring in the most left-wing element of the
country within that tent.
How
different would America look today if they used a different electoral system?
What if they used a run-off system, like France? The country as a whole could
choose rather than a slim slice of voters in primaries/caucuses. What if they
had a parliamentary system? Would a Socialist Party under Bernie Sanders, and
Green Party be prepped to form a coalition with centrist Democrats under
Clinton while the Trumpists, Tea Party and Republicans are pushed to the
opposition?
In
a sense political parties have no obligation to anyone but themselves. Yet in a
two-party system the static nature makes their failures a much greater risk. As
much as I hope 2016 is an abject lesson to the parties in America I fear it
will be one more point on their downward trend.
