turningrite

Majority governments are overrated and I think most voters very quickly find them disappointing. Other democracies, and particularly those with systems other than FPTP, function quite well with coalition governments. It seems to me that such governments provide the possibility of real time accountability.

There's a good article written by Bob Plamondon in today's G&M (link below) that addresses some of the problems facing Scheer's CPC, including the divide between agricultural free traders and protectionists as well as between the party brass and the social conservatives who helped Scheer's winning leadership bid. The article also explains some of the appeal of Bernier's nascent breakaway movement, noting that at this point it potentially enjoys the support of about 16 to 17 percent of the electorate. I suspect that if and/or when Bernier formally starts his party it could well garner up to 25 percent support, thus transforming next year's federal election into a four-way race in which it would be unlikely any party could achieve a majority and might in fact be the most effective means of dethroning Trudeau. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-andrew-scheer-lead-conservatives-to-success/

1.) So you're equating the f-word to racism? I guess that pretty much trivializes racist speech into oblivion. 2.) American culture is much more open to controversial speech and ideas than is Canadian culture. And the difference is more or less ingrained in the respective legal systems of the two countries. American First Amendment rights are sacrosanct which is why "hate speech" laws, for instance, are much more constricted in the U.S. and some states have no such laws at all. And the mere expression of ideas and opinions that might be construed as legitimately intolerant are far less likely to land one in legal jeopardy, such as in front of a human rights commission, south of the border than is the case here. 3.) If the Middle Ages is your starting point, I think you have much more reading to do before commenting on the motivations underlying behavior modification. Maybe you could start by reading Orwell's book, '1984'. Or perhaps you might read a book or two on the great dictators of the 20th century. 4.) I referenced M-103 as an example of a mentality by prefacing it with 'a la' to indicate 'in the style of' - a relatively commonplace rhetorical technique. M-103, of course, is not in and of itself a law but, rather, illustrates a mentality that seeks the legalized imposition of restrictions on opinion and speech and in fact emboldens the federal parliament to enact such restrictions. The best analysis of M-103's insidious impacts was a piece by Neil Macdonald that was published on the CBC's website, 'Liberals' anti-Islamophobia motion is a politically brilliant, sinister piece of work'. You might want to run a search and give it a gander. 5.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say to address my concern about whether we're undermining Westernism, which as you should know if you study history has evolved over the past few centuries largely as an oppositional response to imposed orthodoxy and hierarchy in the contexts of religion, governance, culture and economy. Our societies weren't "designed" for peace and prosperity as though we established institutions that were from the outset intended to achieve these qualities. In fact, these societies and the institutions they built emerged as consequences of centuries of messy and contentious conflict, including the Reformation and revolution-inspiring Enlightenment, where competing ideas themselves served as the fuel for change. We evolved into the world's most prosperous, open and dynamic societies without any clear plan or centrally imposed vision. If we take away the messiness, debate and conflict, there is no West. Philosophically, openness to opposition and conflict is fundamentally who were are as Westerners and why we are who we are. 6.) Why not compare us to the rest of the world if one insists on maintaining, as many progressives instinctively do, that Western societies, including our own, are deeply and hopelessly intolerant and racist, an allegation that's seldom supported by much other than anecdotal reference? At least an exercise in comparison might offer some perspective. And if objective comparisons don't suggest that we're particularly racist after all in contrast to other places then perhaps we might ponder the actual delineation between incidental intolerance and ingrained societal intolerance. As a friend of mine who is Chinese notes, Canada and North America aren't particularly racist compared to most other places to which he's traveled and in which he's lived. In China itself, he says, racism is seldom ever discussed and non-Chinese are generally and uncontroversially viewed and treated as outsiders.

1.) I think it fair to say that by-and-large the parameters of permissible discourse have contracted over the past generation, including in academia, the mainstream media, the education system and even in workplaces. I think it possible that many English-speaking Canadians underestimate this trend given our constant exposure to American media and culture, which function in a country where free speech rights remain far more robust than is the case here. 2.) I doubt it. 3.) Not at all. I found it an amusing example of reductionism, a trend that's become an all too common aspect of modern discourse. 4.) If human beings are naturally intolerant and indoctrination and prohibition are the only ways to force this tendency into remission, why bother worrying about racism at all? Pessimists presumably assume we must legislate limitations on expression (a la M-103) and impose an increasingly rigid regime of forced tolerance. We in the democratic West seem to have become apoplectic about racism in our societies, however studies suggest that the most tolerant societies on the face of the earth include many Western countries, and particularly the Anglo-Western and Scandinavian countries. It makes me wonder whether we're really particularly racist, at least in comparison to global norms, and if we've developed an industry that's dependent for its survival on promoting a belief in the existence of widespread racism.

How, exactly, do you know this? If Woodward has his sources on record, as reportedly he does and is his customary professional approach, then even if, say, half of the information contained in his book is factually correct Trump is a dangerously uninformed and erratic president.

You do realize that the law upon which Canadian First Nations rely to establish and assert their rights, including the treaty system, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, was imposed by one of the Queen's ancestors, King George III, don't you? The proclamation is in fact part of the Canadian constitution. Interestingly, it also asserts the sovereignty of the crown and tends to undermine the "unceded territory" argument put forth by indigenous activists. Oh well, history is complicated.

Many of those quoted in Woodward's book are reportedly insiders who either have worked or still do work inside the White House. If they believe the place is "Crazytown" maybe we should take notice. Sure, a lot of them are backing off now and refusing to acknowledge their statements, but Woodward, reputedly a stellar journalist, recorded his conversations with sources. I wouldn't dismiss the account as casually as Trumpistas seem intent on doing.

I, too, would like to see a system more governed by public input than is currently the case. I categorize our current party system as "managed" democracy because in many instances the purpose of political parties seems to be to prohibit or limit debate on specific issues in order to impose an elitist agenda. It wouldn't be so bad perhaps if we had distinct choices among the parties on offer but that's not generally been the case in recent decades. I'd like to see more direct democracy. I'd like to see a political system more responsive to public opinion and less focused on catering to special interests and/or identity-focused communities. I'm waiting to see if Bernier's proposed party will offer a chance to move beyond the tri-party system that now runs official Ottawa.

I think there has been a shift away from free speech toward "acceptable" speech and that this mentality pervades academia, where the applicable principle seems to be that whatever one's own personal beliefs one simply must not offend anyone. Were they able to speak from their graves, the great Enlightenment thinkers would no doubt be astonished by this. I think much of this form of indoctrination begins much earlier in the the school system, however. When at a family function a couple years ago a very well educated young niece of mine, who holds three degrees, two of them in STEM fields, pronounced that "everybody over 50 is a racist," as if this amounts to an established fact in the known universe. As far as I could figure, her basic premise is that those of us over 50 were never exposed to "anti-racism" education and training while at school. Wow, I thought, so tolerance must be learned and imposed by indoctrination! If this is so, it suggests that human nature is inherently intolerant, which seems to me an entirely pessimistic view. Are our schools churning out graduates predisposed to pessimism? Maybe this is the important shift we should be pondering given that from a historical perspective the Western ethos has been grounded in progress and optimism. Has Westernism reached an end?

Well, according to reports about Woodward's forthcoming book, Trump's advisors have been keeping a lid on his inclination and ability to wreak havoc. Apparently, he's been itching to use military might to throw his country's weight around.

I've heard anecdotally that this is a problem in Canada as well. I believe Germany has a staged status system whereby approved refugee claimants don't automatically obtain permanent residency and perhaps some variation of this might be adopted by other refugee receiving countries in order to stem the tide of marginal asylum seekers. Also, I believe refugee claimants who arrive in Germany get processed relatively quickly but have to wait for a longer period to obtain citizenship than is the case in Canada. The notion that attainment of asylum is seen as conferring permanent status is in its own right quite bizarre. Most crises that generate refugee populations, like the civil war in Syria, aren't permanent. So, conditional asylum applicable to periods of conflict may be a more effective way to manage these situations than granting permanent status, which likely encourages a greater degree of economic migration.

Never underestimate the danger of incompetence. In my opinion, the more powerful the incompetent leader the more damage he/she might cause.

I think the problem has been that the CPC has gravitated to what is considered the "centre" in Canadian politics. Historically, this mushy ground has been home base for the shape shifting Lib party, which has famously campaigned from the left and governed from the right, according to its critics. Trudeau is, no doubt, a corporate globalist although his domestic policies veer in the direction of the oppressively redistributive nanny state. Whether he can maintain this balance is anybody's guess but I think a lot of Canadians are getting tired of paying for it. Trudeau's redistributive agenda leaves no room for the pitiable NDP, which has become irrelevant, but what does Scheer's CPC have to offer on the other hand? According to Bernier, not much more than Trudeau-lite, apparently. The thing about the CPC that most bothers me is that it, like the LPC, now plays the identity politics and special interests game. When you have three mainstream parties that are for the most part singing from the same song sheet, it seems to me that Bernier's proposed party might well offer a valid and attractive alternative. I'm waiting to see the party formed and to read its platform, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. If I'm impressed, I will no doubt contribute to and vote for it.

There are so many studies on the economic impact of immigration in the U.S. that it's difficult to point only to one. However, a prominent study that analyzed outcomes for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after 1980 determined that the average adult immigrant paid $21K more in taxes over a 20 year period following their arrival than the value of public benefits they obtained over the same period. A Bloomberg article discussing the net fiscal impact of immigrants, which cites the study, notes that in comparison to countries with broader social welfare systems, the American experience has been generally positive, particularly where well-educated and/or highly skilled immigrants are concerned. Poorly-educated and/or low-skilled immigrants do exert taxation cost pressures but probably less so than in other countries precisely because of the more limited and restrictive nature of American public welfare benefits. As the article notes, "[in] countries with strong welfare states, immigrants can impose a large fiscal burden on the government." In contrast to the American situation, the most prominent Canadian study, done by the Fraser Institute, suggests that in Canada the annual net fiscal cost (taxes paid less cost of benefits received) associated with our immigration and refugee programs amounts to tens of billions of dollars each year. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-22/immigrants-are-a-fiscal-boon-not-a-burden

The problem with the neo-Malthusian perspective, as apparently espoused by eyeball, is that it relies on logic that's largely been discredited. Malthus, who lived and worked in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when the global population was approximately one billion, believed the world's capacity to absorb further population growth was finite and that the limit would quickly be reached after which famine and disease would inevitably restore balance. Of course, progress and technology intervened and by the late 19th and early 20th centuries global population and population growth exceeded anything Malthus likely would have believed sustainable. Most of the world will adjust to its current and projected population growth levels and in fact UN population projections indicate that over the next several decades actual fertility and growth levels will decline substantially for the first time in modern human history. In the Western hemisphere, virtually no country other than the U.S., which is a magnet for immigrants, will experience significant growth beyond 2050 and most, including Mexico and Brazil, will experience slow population decline. Elsewhere, many European countries as well as Japan and China will experience population decline. There are problem areas, for sure, including the countries of the Indian subcontinent as well as many in Africa, that will experience considerable population growth and increasing population pressure, but this is unlikely to result in any kind of global catastrophe. Canada, on the other hand, with a slowly growing population could benefit from climate change due to an expanded ecumene (inhabitable and arable space). There is little to suggest that the survival of those now living on the territory now occupied by the Canadian federation will face either a major population or resources crisis. We are also advantaged by having relatively few large cities at sea level in comparison to the situation in many other countries. So, why bring an avoidable crisis to our doorstep when projections suggest that we and the Western hemisphere will largely escape significant population pressure? If you're worried about your grandchildren's future, leveling off of Canada's population growth is probably the best approach to pursue.

I'm a bit weary of reading analyses written by those associated with the Mulroney and Chretien regimes, which respectively forged Canada's involvement in the FTA and NAFTA deals. Of course, these people want to see their handiwork endure the test of time. What I don't see much of in these pieces, however, is introspection or objective criticism, both of which are well warranted at this time as our negotiators try to salvage some kind of new deal with a boot heal pressing on their collective neck. Perhaps decades ago they/we should have understood the problems associated with hitching our wagon to a country that throughout its history has been prone to isolationism and exceptionalism? Perhaps they/we should have understood the risk in reorienting the Canadian economy to a continental model based on chimeric notions of American attachment to the enterprise? Given the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians who paid an enormous price for these trade deals, maybe the architects of these deals might explain how and why the sacrifice was worth it.

Is this what obsesses you on a daily or perhaps hourly basis? I seem to recall from some of your other posts that you're a Malthusian pessimist. Not everybody is obligated to concur with this world view and fortunately most don't.

Or maybe they're both idiots, each in his own way. The problem is that Trump has a far greater ability to wreak havoc than Trudeau. Trudeau can wreck Canada and few others will notice and if that's his objective he's certainly giving it a good go. Trump has the power to undermine the world's most important democracy and blow up much of the world.

Some of the excerpts from Woodward's new book that are now emerging suggest that a very erratic Trump is running amok in the White House. If even a fraction of the allegations are correct this is scary stuff for both the U.S. and the rest of the world. And more Americans, apparently, understand the problem. According to recent polling his unfavorable rating is now in the 60 percent range and reportedly most independent voters as well as college-educated voters don't approve of his leadership. How long can Trump's presidency last, particularly if the Republicans lose control of congress in the November midterms?

Oh my, you're having a bad day, right?

I believe Bernier has recently criticized Trudeau's open-ended or "extreme" multiculturalism and during his run for the Conservative leadership race said he'd reduce the immigration numbers to the 250,000 level of the Harper era. (See link.) He's also noted that immigration policy should be reformed in order to meet the needs of the Canadian economy and should not be permitted to be a burden to Canadian taxpayers. It will be interesting to see if he does form an actual political party and what that party's formal position on immigration and refugee policy will be. We know the Lib government's policy will be to increase immigration to whatever level it can get away with and the CPC is promising only a "consultation" on immigration policy, which doesn't mean much of anything in my view. It was actually Mulroney's PC government that cranked up the large-scale immigration program we've experienced over the past three decades. No doubt, it was a corporate-driven agenda intended to suppress wages (which it did) and enhance rentier profits (which it did), but it's been massively costly to ordinary Canadian workers and taxpayers. https://www.maximebernier.com/an_immigration_policy_to_fulfill_canada_s_economic_needs

Of course, this is the way immigration once worked in this country. Countless hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of immigrants who arrived in past generations moved on, either going back home or to another country, if things didn't work out in Canada. That's how my maternal grandfather's mainly Irish ancestors ended up in the U.S., when after figuring out that their economic options were limited in Canada fairly quickly moved south. There were few if any economic incentives available prior to the emergence of the welfare state to tie them to Canada. And this was particularly the case for urban immigrant laborers. Even as recently as the 1950 and 60s European immigrants who couldn't quickly adapt often left. The notion that there's a collective responsibility to ease the integration of immigrants into Canadian society is in my opinion a fairly recent development.

I agree with these positions. However, they won't gain much traction among our mainstream parties. So, we need a new political option.

I thinking you're deluding yourself here. I sometimes wonder whether the objective of the "progressive" left is to find a crisis that doesn't really exist and in the absence of being able to find such a thing at least agitate for one? How many Canadians have ever joined a supposedly hate-related organization or attended a rally held by such a group? The percentage, no doubt, is minuscule. Many Canadians on the other hand are reasonably concerned about high immigration levels for reasons no more nefarious than asserting their concrete and legitimate interests, including concerns about rising taxation funded costs, escalating housing costs and the increasing strain being exerted on limited public services like health care. Expressing none of these concerns in any reasonable scenario amounts to "racism," a term that's become so overused as to have become debased by those who use it to promote personal and/or political agendas.

I think there's lots of evidence that social conservatives still exert strong influence within the CPC. The abortion motion at the Halifax convention, which sought to reopen the debate in Canada, was only narrowly defeated. See link to CBC article below. Also, as the CBC article notes: "The social conservative wing of the party holds a lot of sway; Andrew Scheer, who has identified with this branch in the past, likely wouldn't be leader without them, and they represent a not-insignificant number of the party's total membership." As an economic conservative (or neoliberal, as it were) but mainly social liberal, at least on so-called "morality" issues, the current iteration the CPC doesn't have a lot to offer voters like me. I'd rather have an unabashedly economically conservative party in power that challenges monopolies and oligopolies, eschews corporate subsidies and unfunded individual entitlements and permits rational analysis and open debate on matters like immigration and open-ended multiculturalism. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918