Category: Politics

This category holds articles pertaining to politics. They are: Civilizations, Public Sector, Justin Trudeau, Trump, Left is for Liberal, Muslim Countries, Just Lie, The Welfare State, Brexit, Unspoken Issues, Senate Reform, Who Votes What, Global Warming, the North-South Divide, Conservatives, What Happened (in the 2016 US Election), Propaganda, Health Care, Social Control, Pronouns, Fake News, #YouToo, Socrates and Greg, The Politics of Faith, What’s Up with Green, Democracy, Stage III, Tribalism, The Charity System, Hate, Carbon Tax, SCOTUS, Chris Cuomo, Greta, The Wall, The Pawn Who Looked Up, The 2020 US Election, Middle People, Lessons, and Fraud?

It’s best to read them from bottom to top.

Unspoken Issues

The opposite of smart is dumb, and the opposite of hard working is lazy. Words like these aren’t just insults, they’re opposites to worthy attributes. So, it’s perfectly okay to use them. With that out of the way, let’s talk people.

Quality observations are all around us. We say a brand-new Honda is better than an old Chev because of durability and superior engineering. But can we talk about people in the same way—in regards to quality? If we could, here’s the criteria:

Smart
Hard working
Emotionally stable
Well raised

Smart doesn’t mean genius, it’s the ability to learn skills and retain knowledge. Hard working means reasonably productive. Emotionally stable says you’ve been loved to the level where your act is together. And well raised means you hold society’s goals within your understandings.

Well raised

Freedom is often described as “being able to do whatever you wish, as long as you don’t hurt someone.” So society’s goal, in terms of being well raised, refers to the acts of cordially living together. Every parent, no matter how bad, teaches their kids “please and thank you” along with other cultural traditions. But two practices have been removed from our norm that perhaps should be put back. They are:

Living within your means
Making babies only when ready

People who live paycheque to paycheque never have enough for retirement and often can’t get through the situation of temporary job loss. This creates the need for government programs and public assistance. And babies born to ill-equipped parents are not only robbed of their fair chance at life, but their circumstance can lead them into becoming a danger to others, including those who were well raised.

Low quality people

A common misconception is that low quality people are poor—they’re not. Yes, many are poor but most immigrants and many in low-income positions still provide families with hard working and emotionally stable environments, while encouraging and supporting education. So wealth is not the defining criteria. As a matter of fact, just as many low quality people can be found in the upper and middle classes. Why? Because the primary criterion is whether you’ve been loved and well raised, and many of us have not.

Parenting

Any good parent will tell you it’s work to successfully raise a good child. The effort required to love, teach, and provide is almost endless. So how do the dumb, lazy, emotionally unstable, and poorly raised do at it?

Parenting in the early years involves loads of physical energy and the later years require good mental skills. And though most of us get through phase one, thanks to help from neighbours and grandparents, it’s the teenage years that prove most problematic—especially when one is without a partner. Many kids are forced into leaving home early because their parent(s) can’t handle them. Lower quality caregiver(s) simply can’t continue to love fully grown bodies and they don’t hold the skills to provide teens with guidance. The result is eggs being tossed into the harshness of reality long before they’re cooked. (And we have lots of them.)

Culture

Ann Coulter, a popular representative of the far-right, once said kids born into lousy environments are statistically better off being adopted and the talk show crowd went nuts. She was tormented to pieces for mentioning such a thought. Now, I’m not advocating Ann’s position but do believe we ought to consider reinforcing the old norms.

Why can’t rappers make songs like, Don’t Breed ‘Em Until You Can Feed ‘Em, Let’s Be Smart About It, and Double Up? Aren’t school posters depicting young couples with captions like, “No Glove, No Love” and “No Pill, No Thrill,” only prudent? And shouldn’t speeches from politicians and social leaders include comments like, “Let everyone aspire to live within their means and only make children when it’s their time?” Crazy? Maybe. But many immigrants, with no more than grade three, know all about these things. Why? Because these sorts of messages have been pounded into them since birth. So if some parents aren’t giving kids these values, maybe society should. (Remember, it takes a village.)

Conclusion

There was a time when people valued financial astuteness and felt shamed by children born out of wedlock. But these views have shifted to valuing our credit scores and believing condoms are just for sailors. I’m not saying everyone thinks this way but views like these are commonly held among our lower quality friends.

Liberals hate this stuff. Issues like living within your means and having babies only when ready, or talking about the quality of people makes them crazy. You’ll never see a Michael Moore film about this. They wish words like dumb, lazy, emotionally unstable, and poorly raised were eliminated from our vocabulary because they’re demeaning to the ones created and raised under these conditions. But Ann is just saying you have to wait a few years.

The right is constantly criticized for offering simple solutions to complicated problems, while lefties believe everyone is innocent and we’re essentially all the same. And though some lefties suggest keeping the word stupid just to describe those like Ann Coulter, problems never get solved when swept under the rug.

Note: The National Review reports that 40% of babies born in the US are out of wedlock. When you factor in a percentage for parents who eventually get married or stay together as an unmarried couple, this percentage obviously comes down. And yes, consumer debt is at an all-time high.

Brexit

A lot has been made about Britain’s recent decision to leave the European Union. While most observers dismiss this as the realization of the inevitable, some fear it marks the end of the EU. Those of us on this side of the Atlantic are wondering who’s right.

European Union

The EU was initially constructed out of the European Common Market. An establishment that began in 1957 with the aim of economic integration among its six founding members (which grew to 12 by 1986).

In the mid-1990s, Europe took an even greater leap by folding together a number of existing bodies and expanding their roles. It became known as the EU. The model was equated to Europe becoming like the United States, with powers being shared between a federal body (in Brussels) and provinces or states.

The article, Public Sector, highlights the division of duties we have here in Canada between federal, provincial, and city governments. And we’ve seen a similar situation when Newfoundland abandoned independence to join confederation in 1949.

The “federal-style” changes brought about by the EU include the following:

A common currency backed by a central bank (in Germany).
A free-flow of Europeans to live and work anywhere within the Eurozone.
A central (or federal) agency for the regulation of food products (like the USDA).
A central (or federal) agency for immigration.
Central (or federal) agencies for public health, safety standards, industry, social welfare, foreign aid, the environment, and many other areas including a common strategy for justice and defense.

Changes like these go far beyond the wish to share open markets. They threaten the long standing notion of sovereignty and challenge national pride. And because of these changes, Britain was suspect from the start.

The two largest countries in the EU are France and Germany. They’re the engines behind the push. Most smaller countries readily complied because, for them, this was their way to survive. But middle-sized countries like Britain and Spain were constantly weighing their options. As a result, setbacks were expected.

Greece

We’ve also heard much about Greece and its debt, along with allegations that if only they had their own currency, they could devalue it and get out of this mess. But this is mostly nonsense. Does Manitoba need its own currency whenever times get tough?

Greece is now a province that simply spends more than it makes, due largely to an oversized and overpaid civil service (like Alberta). And when a province runs large deficits over time, it finds itself in financial trouble (like Ontario).

Fun facts

Two more facts to convince you that Britain will survive and the EU is still strong:

Nine European countries are not part of the EU including Norway, Switzerland, Russia, and Turkey.
Of the 27 member states, only 19 use the euro. Those abstaining include Britain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, and Denmark.

Conclusion

Just imagine if Canada joined the U.S. in a similar manner. How would you like it (even if it did made economic sense)? And how would you like the idea of adopting U.S. social platforms like their gun laws? Then imagine the complexity of putting together 27 proudly independent nations, many with their own language, into one overriding body. Did you really expect a project of this magnitude to be accomplished without incident? (Especially considering their histories?)

The EU has, for the most part, been a success and is now roughly the economic size and population of the US. This affords them the ability to develop and sustain projects like the Airbus, effective environmental controls, and collective foreign policy. And today’s young people consider themselves Europeans as much as they do Irish, Polish, or Dutch.

Experts say the EU is a political experiment of the highest importance concerning how human societies think about themselves and their relationships with others. (They’re also witnessing a decline in the traditional loyalties we have to nations and see a shift towards transnational and regional units.) My belief is the EU will continue its success and Britain will someday join again. (Or, maybe they’ll be offered something like a notwithstanding clause and never leave.)

The Welfare State

Without a doubt, socialism has to be the most misconstrued term in the political dictionary. Nobody really knows what it means. So here’s our take on how government gets involved with the economy. First, there are five styles.

Communism is max, where everyone works for the state. The minimum is where government exists only to defend the shores, make and enforce laws, maintain a federal currency, and run the post office. It’s called Jeffersonian and was popular in the late 1700s. Other than a few exceptions, neither of these are being used today. Instead, we see mixed economies, where both capitalism and socialism operate together. And they come in three forms:

High Socialism (most government involvement)
New Deal (least government involvement)
New Deal 2.0 (most popular)

High Socialism

Socialism refers to the amount of public ownership in an economy. Total government ownership is found only in communism (along with rules like no private property and everything has to be painted grey). Other than that, there really aren’t any “socialist countries.” Only socialized elements found in every country. For example, we say Canada has socialized medicine but within our system there are capitalist components like private drug plans and cosmetic surgery.

High socialism refers to large amounts of government ownership. It’s found in countries where governments keep certain industries for themselves (typically natural resources and utilities). Common in the developing world, parts of this style remain in Canada where many provinces still run their own liquor business and auto insurance.

And there are valid reasons for high socialism. Namely a country’s population and business environment. If a nation’s population isn’t large enough to support competition, you’re basically forced into having monopolies run the airline, railroad, and utilities. Likewise with developing natural resources. Some nations simply don’t have the required infrastructure (e.g., property rights, rule of law) for capitalism to operate. But remember, a mall in a highly socialized country is essentially the same as a mall in America. Every facet from manufacturers to retailers to food courts are privatized. That’s because even within highly socialized countries, consumer and industrial goods are still produced and sold by the private sector.

New Deal

Initially, we had only one style—1700s Jeffersonian. But in the mid-1800s, people started to feel the benefits of capitalism weren’t being evenly shared. They increasingly saw industrialists as selfish hogs who cared little about the masses. This sentiment grew to spawn the communist movement.

In response to worker uprisings and social unrest everywhere, countries like Germany, England, and France rolled out what would later be called in America, The New Deal. Varying by country, it included programs like unemployment insurance, public pensions, public education, and public health care. Plus, they added laws to ensure labour standards, promote unions, and regulate industry. Communism did make its gains but these steps worked well to retain capitalism in most of the developed world. And socialist policies were adopted into each country’s conscience. Free market economist, Milton Friedman, called it a watershed moment.

New Deal 2.0

Through the 1900s and into the new millennium, many countries grew their social programs to include more items like child care, public transit, free education at the post-secondary level, and increased business regulation. So starting from left to right, it goes:

Communism ⇨ High Socialism ⇨ Large Welfare State ⇨ Small Welfare State ⇨ Jeffersonian

Liberals pull to the left and conservatives to the right. In Canada, this means lefties want new programs like national daycare and complete pharmacare. They’ll lobby for schools to provide no-pay preschool delivered by properly compensated provincial employees. They’ll fight for healthcare to be expanded to cover the cost of all drugs (replacing private plans that do it now) and they’ll want post-secondary education to be free. Throw in a public dental plan and you can almost see the future.

Summary

US senator, Bernie Sanders, is often called a socialist but he’s really not. Bernie is simply a proponent of a larger welfare state. Perhaps for America, this is a safer term. And remember, social safety nets don’t always have to be delivered by the public sector—many times they’re outsourced.

In the end, people change, environments change, and we continue to learn from our past. We also learn about what works best within human nature. The notion of a large and comforting welfare state sounds wonderful, as long as it doesn’t take us back. Liberals openly welcome the change while ardent conservatives feel they erode humanity’s basic sense of self-reliance (plus they wonder who’s paying for all this?). We’ll see.

For more information, see the Economy of Sweden, Welfare in Sweden, and this video. You’ll be amazed by what you find. Sweden isn’t a socialist country as commonly understood, it’s a capitalist one with a large welfare state. As a matter of fact, it’s more capitalist than Canada in a number of ways (e.g., charter schools, privately run hospitals, and their auto insurance is totally privatized, where it’s public in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec).

Just Lie

This week the federal Liberals posted their first budget. After recording a $1.9B surplus for 2015 and a $5.4B deficit for 2016, Canada is projected to incur another $81B in deficits over the next 3 years—with no plan to return to balanced books.

Deficits can be justified and conditions certainly change, but isn’t this vastly different than what Justin just said during the election—6 months ago? When he promised to run short-term losses of less than $10B in each of the next two fiscal years (2016 and 17)? Politicians are known to break promises but this one appears to be deliberate, which calls into question what voters can and can’t believe, and how a person should vote.

Non-disclosure

Before jumping all over the libs, let’s take a look back at Harper. He didn’t lie about the numbers but did fail to disclose his personal position towards the Bible. Because if we had outright known he was a super-Christian, we could have predicted his disposition towards things like minimum sentencing, gay marriage, funding abortions in developing countries, doctor-assist, and policies that were pro-Israel. So he sorta lied too.

Machiavellianism

Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat who wrote The Prince. In this work, the protagonist employs cunning and deceitfulness to achieve an altruistic goal. Linguistically, this “end justifies the means” behaviour has been coined after him.

And if you like a good liar, next time we should get Trump. Can you imagine if Donald partook in our last debate? He would have responded to Justin’s middle-class tax cut with this: “Nobody loves the middle-class more than me. I love the middle-class. But I also love the poor, so I’m going to extend that tax break to them too. Because nobody loves the poor like me.”

Ideology

In his book, My Years as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien wrote that politicians running for office do it for one reason only—power. And that people who crave power will say almost anything in order to obtain it. So voting has essentially come down to choosing an ideology. That’s what our American friends do.

Because they vote twice as often, these people have discovered that it’s mostly about style. After being duped a number of times by campaign lies, they’ve matured to the realization that voting isn’t about discussing issues. It’s about ignoring what everybody says and analyzing who these people actually are. That’s why they use ideology as the driving factor behind checking either box.

The results from our last Canadian election prove this. Stephen Harper would never have socially legalized marijuana or fiscally incurred such debt. So if you’re the type who generally agrees with conservative principles, vote blue. Otherwise, check red. And if you’re ever campaigning for something—just lie.

P.S. What’s funny is that many believe Thomas Mulcair lost the election because he opted to support not running deficits. So either he lost because he didn’t lie, or was planning to do the same thing.

Muslim Countries

There’s an argument going on over the religion of Islam and its cultural effect on Muslim countries. Since intellectuals never wish to paint large things with the same brush, here’s what you need to know:

there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (2.2 billion Christians)
there are 50 Muslim-majority countries

Muslim-majority countries

When you say Muslim countries, you really mean Muslim-majority countries because they host people of many religions—just like us.

Muslim-majority countries include: Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. These countries are politically and culturally different. For example, seven of them have had women serve as presidents (e.g., Indonesia and Turkey), while some have just recently given women the partial ability to vote (e.g., Saudi Arabia).

Fundamentalism

Islam has the same types of religious people as us: fundamentalists, progressives, and lights.

Many Muslim-majority countries are also poor with low rates of literacy and large social problems. A common byproduct of a country’s low economic standing is that many of its people follow strict religious beliefs. And fundamentalism can be both good and bad, depending on who’s pulling the strings. Bad leaders take advantage of the simple-minded by using twisted interpretations of scripture to pursue political ends. Good leaders use the exact same scripture to bring hope and comfort.

In Christian countries, bad leaders have used “the word of God” to talk us into burning witches, suppressing women’s rights, suppressing gays, and warring against people of other faiths (plus other Christians) all in His name. But non-religious countries, like China, have also brainwashed their public into warring through nationalism. So is religion really part of the problem or is it just one of the ways to control people?

Modernization

A modern country is a modern country regardless of their majority religion. And most countries continue to move towards greater modernization. When Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, wasn’t that an act of social modernizing? And now that we’re about to legalize marijuana, isn’t it also the same thing?

Saudi Arabia recently (2015) allowed women to vote in municipal elections—it’s progress. China hasn’t done the same thing yet for men. And is Turkey any more controlled by religion than the US? Many would say yes, but not by much.

It took years of educating Canadians to arrive at where we now are. Education is the impetus behind any society becoming modern. And education is being forced upon any country choosing capitalism so you can’t stop it.

Saudi Arabia is the one exception because it has both money and a theocracy. They’re a country of 20 million with another 8 million guest workers, who bring the educational talents. And only because of their great oil reserves are their leaders able to have their cake and eat it too. But the economic reality for most countries is either to embrace capitalism or face starvation.

Summary

There are a number of points to make:

You can’t say “Muslim countries” because there are 50 of them—all different. You can’t even generalize because Indonesia and Turkey are much different than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
A bad leader’s twisted interpretation of Islam isn’t much different than a bad leader’s twisted interpretation of Christianity.
Economic modernization requires an educated society, which brings with it social modernization. And even today’s modern countries are still evolving.

The argument

Sympathizers say fundamentalist interpretations of Islam in order to achieve political gain isn’t to blame. Countries with unstable environments are hotbeds for extremism without the use of religion, and the problem lies more in poor economic conditions and bad leaders. And that absent of religion, these leaders would simply find another way (like, nationalism). Opponents feel that fundamentalist Islam is much worse than fundamentalist Christianity, and the real issue is that so many Muslims are under its spell. And in a world of nuclear bombs, we must desperately hurry these countries along.

Most agree there’s a problem. One that’s dangerous for whatever reason. And I doubt the solution lies in criticizing Islam. I feel a better approach is to get these people listening to country music, eating Domino’s pizza, and watching baseball. Then I’m sure we’ll all get along.

Note: For further discussion, see: Bill Maher with Sam Harris and Ben Affleck, MSNBC with Lawrence O’Donnell and Sam Harris, CNN interview with Reza Aslan, Conversations with Great Minds with Reza Aslan, and The Young Turks discussion between Cenk Uygur and Sam Harris.

Left is for Liberal

The problem with politics is we use definitions contrived back in the 1700s. Then rather than make up new ones, we update the old to arrive at terms like classical liberalism and neo-conservatism, which nobody understands. Here’s what you need to know.

England wrested away control from its monarch in 1688. So rather than have a king tell us what to do, we now had elected officials. Initially there were two political parties: Conservatives and the Whigs. Back then, only wealthy people could serve in parliament (since you didn’t get paid) and only the wealthy could vote (because the masses were considered illiterate). So in essence, you had two conservative parties. What happened next rests on four pillars:

advent of social liberalism
advent of economic liberalism
separation of church and state
the progressive movement

Classic liberalism is the belief in liberty—both social and economic. Early proponents include John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. Prior to, people thought rights were something given to them by the government, but documents like the US Constitution say that rights are inalienable (can’t be taken away) and it’s the government’s role to protect those rights. That’s how we got things like habeas corpus (innocence before being proven guilty).

Mill & Smith

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a political philosopher who coined the notion of social liberty. He championed individual freedoms over unlimited state control and advocated that people be allowed to better themselves and their situation, as long as they didn’t harm others or society at large. So if somebody isn’t hurting anyone, leave him or her alone.

Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) was a pioneer of economics. He said that, left to its own devices, a free market will maximize outputs through the invisible hand of supply and demand. So again, to get the most out of your economy, leave it alone.

Separation of church and state

The church was always involved in running any country. Kings, queens, and the like, relied upon clergy to implement any social change. They themselves only had sole control over the economy. This separation took hundreds of years but it persevered in most countries. Part of the reason was diversity—people were now subscribing to various belief systems (at least, Catholic and Protestant). And even after the separation, faith continued to play a significant role within culture.

We must also recognize the contribution made by fundamental religion, particularly Christianity, to the development of the West. The principles of hard work and “love thy neighbour” spawned not only ethics and charity, but also the credit system. Unfortunately, there is also a negative side that libertarians wanted to get away from. Old Testament norms that relate to the inferiority of women, harsh and cruel punishment, and naming homosexuality a sin, turned off many. So another form of liberalism became freedom away from the Bible.

Progressives

At the outset, governments only did four things:

defend the shores (military)
defend people’s rights (law courts, sheriffs, and police)
create a federal currency
deliver the mail

But in the late 1800s, a labour movement emerged that began to change things. Based on worker uprisings and the global threat of communism, governments started adding public services to their plate. They arrived at what we now call the welfare state.

Modern day liberals sprouted from this movement. For example, in 1859, the Whigs joined with two small groups to form Britain’s first Liberal Party. Six years later, John Stuart Mill joined them as an elected member. Many conservatives agreed with these notions, which caused a split (or schism) in the party. These new conservatives called themselves “progressives”—a label adopted by the Conservative Party of Canada in 1942.

Social liberty

Today, we have two major political parties that are continually being evaluated by their ideology, which has two main components—social and economic.

Both sides agree with Mill’s idea about forwarding the rights of the individual. There is no qualm here. The social contest only comes between liberals, who’ve slipped away from the confines of the Bible, and conservatives who got stuck with it. It’s not like conservatives ran around convincing people to start believing in this stuff—they already believed. Actually, up to 100 years ago, most of us would be considered religious fundamentalists. The liberals just started to break away, which added a second component to social liberation.

So everyone agrees with freedom. The difference sits when it comes to the Bible. Cons are more willing to keep Biblical law within real law and Christianity in culture. Liberals are the opposite. They say laws should be based on reason, not on what some good book says. Then when it comes to economics, everything reverses. Conservatives are more like Adam Smith. Yes, progressives are fine with the prospect of a welfare state but other than that, they wish government to stay out of business. Liberals on the other hand are more comfortable with government playing a larger role within the economy. (And hardline conservatives don’t even like the idea of a welfare state.)

Now let’s be honest, liberals are good at this social stuff. I’m sure that recreational pot, legalized prostitution, euthanasia, nude beaches, and removing fidelity from marriage will all come to be. But does any of this have to do with political ideology? Shouldn’t social issues be decided by people and not parties? And aren’t these discussions to be held primarily between the elderly and the young? In many respects, social issues are like managing a kid’s bedtime. Parents let them make their own decisions when they are ready. If you deny them at 8, you’re justified. At 12, you should be giving some leeway. And if they don’t have their own way by 24, they’ll revolt.

Summary

On social issues, politicians’ personal opinions shouldn’t matter much when it’s majority rule. The government’s job is to ascertain whether we (society) are ready for the next step. Economically, we’ll continue to talk about things like the size of government and what it should and shouldn’t do, along with the distribution of income (in terms of taxation). That’s enough to fight about.

This whole thing has washed out to liberals being in charge of social liberties while conservatives tend over the numbers. As one Tory said, “They can sleep with whomever they like, as long as they don’t screw with business.” And this will be the topic of another article.

Note: In America, the Christian component is still a big part of the conservative party—and we still see some in Canada. Stephen Harper, considered strong economically, slipped into his platform that “marriage is only between a man and a woman,” and removed the word, progressive, from the party’s name. The party then removed the slight against gay marriage after he retired.

Trump

In order to appreciate the current political situation in the US, you need to know a little about American politics.

Independents

On Larry King Live, former president Bill Clinton, explained how presidential elections work. He said that before any election starts, 45% of the people are voting left, 45% are voting right, and only 10% make the actual decision. This means that 90% of the population are staunch ideologues who cast their ballot regardless of candidates or issues.

Proof for his statement can be found in the 2008 election. Sexy democrat, Barack Obama faced off against old republican, John McCain, who was considered a political lightweight. In the midst of a disastrous war and an economic meltdown (presided over by a republican president), there had never been a better time to lean left. But in the end, the results were:

Obama 53%, McCain 46%, Other 1%.

The media called it a landslide for Obama because he got 8% of the independent vote while McCain only managed to get 1.

Third-party candidates

Clinton’s view becomes even more interesting when you look at presidential elections that involve third-party candidates. In 1992, famed businessman, Ross Perot, ran for office against republican president, George H. Bush, and democratic nominee, Bill Clinton. Perot’s platform was a rejuvenated form of conservatism that appealed to many on the right. The final results were:

Clinton 43%, Bush, 37%, Perot, 19%, Other 1%.

Assuming moderates were evenly split, Perot attracted away at least 13% of the republican base, thereby causing a democratic victory.

Then consider the election of 2000, when democrat Al Gore ran against George W. That election featured notorious consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, as a third-party candidate. His reputation and platform appealed strongly to the left. The final results were:

Bush 47.9%, Gore 48.4%, and Nader 2.7%.

There’s no doubt that if Nader hadn’t run, Gore would have won the election.

GOP

Before getting to Donald, let’s talk about the Republican Party.

The article, Left is for Liberal, details the differences between the two major parties. In part, it describes the conservative ideology as being pro-business and in favour of lower taxation for less government service. But there are degrees to the degree. Meaning you have “small c” or moderate conservatives, and those of the far right.

During the last presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich explained that republican primaries usually come down to a contest between a more conservative candidate, like himself, and a moderate, like Mitt Romney. And history shows that in the greater majority of cases, the moderate wins. But after the inception of the Tea Party in 2008, the Republican Party has been shifting further and further to the far right.

The Tea Party’s isn’t your typical ideological objection to the strong carrying the weak. It’s a deeper philosophic argument that openly touts 1700s-style conservatism.

Shortly after its formation, 1996 republican presidential nominee, Bob Dole, came out publicly to warn against their policies. And Bernie Sanders, in an October 2014 interview with Bill Moyers, said the Tea Party has been enormously successful, stating “they’ve taken a centre-right party and made it a right-wing extremist party.”

Moderates are being pushed aside by dirty tea party tricks. Like, incumbents being challenged by well-funded Tea Party candidates for re-nomination—which is crazy. For example, in 2010, Utah’s three term senator, Bob Bennett, was defeated in his primary by Tea Party candidate (and Brigham Young graduate), Mike Lee.

In short, pundits say the only way to stop this super-right charge is for “small c” conservatives to boycott their own party. Moderates have to stand up to the extremists and threaten to join hands with the democrats. (So this hard right-wing thing is a problem.)

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is the irrational dislike of people from other countries.

In today’s presidential world, no serious candidate would ever base any part of their campaign on something like this. Why? Because democrats don’t like it, independents don’t like it, and “small c” conservatives don’t like it. The best you can do with a platform of this nature is attract maybe 25% of the vote. Certainly no way to win a presidential race.

So why would any serious candidate kick off his or her campaign with a large reference to xenophobia? That’s what Donald Trump did. And that’s why, immediately after his initial remarks about Mexico sending us their criminals and rapists, seasoned columnists started to smell a fish.

They contrived a conspiracy theory that went something like this: Donald starts off as a republican, splits off into a third-party candidate, appeals to the xenophobic wackos, takes 5-10% of the vote, and Hillary cruises to the White House.

They later supported this theory with additional facts like: “Trump is really a democrat” and “he’s personal friends with the Clintons.” And then provided numerous examples of his being for the left.

The Donald

Okay, so what do we really know about Trump? He’s rich and probably a narcissist.

If you ever had to cast a person to play the part of the above conspiracist, Donald would be it. He’s definitely an attention seeker who, at best guess, is politically aligned somewhere between a moderate and a democrat.

In the words of Zeus, Socrates, and some other Italian guy, you never really know the reason why, but my sincerest suspicion is that Donald is operating from the good. I truly believe his intentions are to face down the threat of extremism and give the Tea Party a swift kick in the pants. And though no conspiracy theory can ever be reliably proved, the strategy of using xenophobia as a defining issue was brilliant. No other matter could have better exposed the ugly underbelly of the far-right movement and forced moderates into making a choice.

In the 1980s, after the Pope and Britain’s royal family, the most popular person alive was Muhammad Ali. In the 1990s it was Michael Jackson, and during the first decade of this century—Tiger Woods. I believe Donald will soon be awarded this title (so yes, there’s something in it for him).

Political extremism, on either wing, is bad because it’s mainly about manipulative minority rule, and we should never have that. I applaud Trump for taking the lead on this issue and wish him success. Because, like Metropolis could only call upon Clark Kent to battle the villains of his day, we have only “the Donald” to champion this fight. God bless America and God bless Donald Trump.

Then again, it’s just a theory.

Justin

In the last federal election, I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Though I felt Harper was far-right on some social issues, I waived this for the sake of his competence with numbers. But I’m not angry the Liberals won. On the contrary. As a centrist, I believe society is better served when both parties get a turn. I’d rather see 10 years of left and 10 years of right before 20 years of either one—because that’s how our system gets to the centre.

We simply haven’t evolved to the point where all parties “manage from the middle.” So instead of long serving centrist parties that sometimes take from the left and sometimes take from the right, we get wild swings of one way or the other. One team shoves its ideology down our throats, then the opposing side takes the field and reverses the controversial bits but leaves what they should have passed when they were in charge. This all-left, all-right style does sorta produce centrist rule but it’s disruptive and most people don’t like it. Business definitely doesn’t like it—they prefer slow and gradual change.

But enough of this centrist stuff, what do I think of Justin? Two things: he’s an intellectual lightweight and his Prime Ministership will be of great importance.

Since he has none of his dad’s philosopher king capabilities, his intellectual skills are suitable only for consensus-style management—and this style will, for the very first time, be put to the national test. The article on Modern Decision Making explains the pitfalls of the consensus model, concluding that it’s a combination of the two styles that works best. Within this government, it will be the role of somebody else to perform the duties of suffering, responsibility, nursing, and consistency—not the PM.

But who? When George W was around, everyone knew Dick Cheney was pulling the strings. So who’s pulling Justin? The answer is a committee. And that’s what’s interesting. For the first time in history we’re going to be managed by a committee. Now let me be the first to say this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it’s a coming of time. We’ve been highly educating people in this country for over 60 years and may have arrived at a point where we no longer defer to an expert. It’s group rule.

At the beginning I explained why I voted for Harper. I said that despite my opinion of his negatives, I was willing to vote for his positives. But since Trudeau’s election, I haven’t heard anyone say, “though Justin’s not a genius, we had to make a change.” People feel sufficiently confident that, collectively, we can do this and that there’s nothing wrong with Justin—he’s just like us.

Trudeau is a repercussion of mass education and a further peg in the female style of management. Staunch conservatives aren’t afraid of the liberal ideology—we’ve had it before. They’re afraid of being guided by an airhead. They liken it to a company overrun by staff or a family being run by the kids. But these committee people are neither employees nor kids. They’re professionals who’ve been successful in their former lives and aren’t new to the concept of being a boss.

Justin Trudeau will not be an exceptional Prime Minister but this country is. And what he represents about Canada is a new belief system that says we’re intelligent people who care about one another, and not a bunch of trolls needing to be led. Personally, I’m going to sit back and watch this unfold. I’m not going to be a sour-grape, sore loser and complain. I’m going to watch, witness, and evaluate whether my country has attained the ability to almost govern itself.

I have to tell you, Justin, I’m looking forward to the ride. (And I wish you well.)

Public Sector

Canada’s population is around 36 million, of which 18 million work. Twenty percent of those workers operate somewhere within government, at one of three levels. Let’s see what they do.

Federal

Our federal government provides services through various ministries. Here are some (click for a full list):

Aboriginal Affairs
Agriculture and Fisheries
Canada Revenue Agency
Citizenship and Immigration (e.g., immigration, refugees, passports)
Employment and Social Services (e.g., CPP, Old Age Security, Employment Insurance)
Environment (e.g., Environmental Protection, Parks Canada)
Finance (e.g., Auditor General, Bank of Canada, Deposit Insurance, Canadian Mint)
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Heritage (e.g., CRTC, CBC, National Film Board, Sport Canada)
Health (e.g., food inspection, public health agency)
Industry (e.g., National Research Council, Statistics Canada, Canadian Space Agency)
Justice (e.g., Human Rights Commission, Supreme Court)
National Defense (e.g., Army, Navy, Air Force, Royal Military College, Veteran Affairs)
Natural Resources (e.g., Atomic Energy Board, National Energy Board)
Public Safety (e.g., Border Services, Correctional Services, CSIS, RCMP)
Transport (e.g., Canada Post, Via Rail)

Provincial

The province of Alberta also has ministries. They include the following (click for a full list):

Aboriginal Relations
Agriculture, Forestry, Culture and Tourism
Education (e.g., teachers, schools, busing, advanced education)
Economic Development, Energy and Environment
Health Care (e.g., doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, drugs, ambulances)
Human Services (e.g., welfare, AISH – Alberta Income for the Severely Handicapped, child services, people with disabilities, seniors)
Labour Relations (e.g., WCB, Occupational Health and Safety, Labour Relations)
Justice and Solicitor General (e.g., police, law courts, prisons, parole, sheriff’s office)
Transportation (e.g., highway maintenance, motor vehicles, safety regulations)
Treasury Board (e.g., gaming and liquor, ATB bank, auto insurance board)

Municipal

The City of Edmonton provides services through various departments. Here are some (click for a full list):

Garbage and Recycling
Snow Removal and Landscaping
Public Transit (e.g., buses and LRT)
Power, Water, and Sewer (e.g., Epcor)
Fire Stations, Road Construction and Maintenance
Land Sales, Zoning, Building Permits, Building Inspections
Attractions (e.g., parks, trails, libraries, zoo, concert halls, museums)
Sports Facilities (e.g., rec centers, arenas, golf courses, pools, professional stadiums)
Hosting Festivals and Public Events

Outsourcing

Now, not all services paid for by government are provided by government. For example, in Alberta x-rays and blood tests are performed by private companies. Likewise, most cities have subcontracted their garbage collection. As a rule, conservatives like to see outsourcing as much as possible.

Alberta privatized its liquor stores in 1993. The wholesale component is still handled by the province but the retail side is fully private (so you can own a liquor store). Then Alberta did the same thing with registries (e.g., renewing your driver’s license). Some US states have even subcontracted public education. The government pays so much per student and business hires teachers and builds the building. Sure, they’re regulated but wow—you can own a school!

Conclusion

We’ll forever argue over which services governments should and should not provide and whether we’re getting our money’s worth. We’ll also argue over what should be outsourced, but there is no question that government does a lot for us. Add to this the thousands of registered charities in Canada and you see how good we are at taking care of each other.

Civilizations

If you were asked to describe a country like Canada, Egypt, or Indonesia, you could possibly start by categorizing it by civilization. We’ve had numerous civilizations throughout history and continue to host many today. North Americans and most Europeans belong to Western Civilization. So do Australians and New Zealanders.

A civilization is defined according to three themes:

its belief system (usually religious)
its economic system
its form of government

* There are other cultural influences like food, rule of law, and social customs that we’re ignoring for the purpose of this article.

Western Civilization

Western Civilization is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, free-market capitalism, and democracy. In contrast, Arab civilization is based on Muslim beliefs, economies that are largely state run, and governments that are either dictatorships or monarchies.

Civilization refers to a country’s style, as opposed to its geographic location. Canada and New Zealand certainly aren’t neighbours but we think alike.

America

Okay, so how would you define America? America is a country within Western Civilization that subscribes to Judeo-Christian beliefs, free-market capitalism, and its constitutional democracy.

Canada

Canada also belongs to Western Civilization but is less religious, employs less of a free-market ideology, and has a different form of democracy (we use the Westminster system). So we’re unique from the United States but still part of the same civilization. The same could be said about France. France is also westernized but their people are even less religious and less adherent to free markets than we are.

So civilization is a general belief system that’s open to regional interpretation.

China

Let’s compare all this to 1950s China. China then, was not a member of Western Civilization—they had their own. They abolished religion and believed in individual servitude to the state; had a command economy, where all companies were operated by the state; and government was based in communism.

This is a very different style than the one held by the West. Now eventually, when faced with starvation, China converted its economy to quasi-capitalism—but their current thinking still leaves them on their own.

ISIS

ISIS is currently attempting to create a new civilization. One that embodies the religious, economic, and political beliefs of Wahhabi Islam. Commentator Bill Maher says not only is the West different from others—it’s better. And most westerners agree.

So is ISIS a threat to our civilization and way of life? And is combating ISIS like fighting the war once waged against communism? Questions like these are beyond the scope of this site but now you know what everyone is talking about.