Archive for the ‘Politics US’ Category

Turbulent Times – A Path to Dictatorship?

August 27, 2017

A rough path to dictatorship is to be elected by a recognized democratic process and then to use the powers to create a dictatorship. Hitler did this in the 1930’s in Germany, while Mussolini and Franco performed a version of this in Italy and Spain. Conditions prevailing in each country determined the particular means to the takeover. Could this happen again?

 

After less than a year in office, 35 percent of the US electorate continue to support the president. Many are people with lower incomes who have not enjoyed the benefits of economic growth enjoyed by the rest of the population. To-date, President Trump has the support of those disadvantaged who are willing to ignore or to forgive him for the erratic way in which he has chosen to govern – the failure to make appointments to key positions, scripted speeches outlining policies (increasing troop deployment to Afghanistan) together with incendiary remarks about the failure of Congress to enact his platform, and possibly a willingness to create turmoil by refusing to fund the government. Another sign of unrest is the number of appointees who have either been fired or resigned their positions in the first eight months of the administration.

 

Presidential power has so far been held in check to-date by a combination of media reporting, the courts and acts of Congress. Should these fail to receive public attention and support then the democratic process flowing from the US Constitution will be in jeopardy. Currently two areas of particular concern are what happens if North Korea (or any other nuclear state) initiates an attack, and what happens if funding to the federal government is terminated.

 

The circumstances today in the US are in many ways unlike those experienced by Germany, Italy and Spain in the 1930’s, but the seeds of dictatorship exist and could still take root. The growth of political and economic uncertainty, both domestically in the US and internationally, is bound to create instability – in what precise ways is difficult to predict.

Advertisements

Forty days into the new US administration – some thoughts

March 3, 2017

1. Michael Moore called the election correctly, unlike almost all the news media pundits. He did so by observing the enthusiastic crowds at Trump meetings, and Clinton’s lukewarm crowd support, plus the fact that Sanders supporters said they would not back Clinton if Sanders was not the candidate. Most of the media forecast the outcome they wanted, not what voters were signaling, which the democrats did not want to hear.

2. The Democrats nationally are now in the weakest position they have been in for decades with no obvious leadership candidates. They have lost Senate and House seats, governorships and control in a growing number of states. They did however get about three million more of the popular vote in the presidential contest. While this does not count in the way presidents are elected, it reinforces the message that the country is divided.

3. The newly elected president does not read mainstream media, although his staff does. He Tweets and watches cable news networks, especially Fox News. His behaviour suggests a cocktail of narcissism and mental instability. This seemed to change with a measured and lengthy speech to the joint Congressional Houses on Feb. 28th. The speech contained spending proposals which would vastly inflate the budget deficit and weaken the US dollar and raise interest rates. However the stock market has boomed since the election…..go figure.

4. The involvement of Russia in the election is still unknown, but after a brief honeymoon period between the US and Russia there are signs of future instability due to contacts between Republican cabinet appointees and Russian officials before the election. This could be linked to Trump’s tax returns which may show that he had funding from and commercial ties with Russian businesses.

5. Elected Congressional Republicans are having a hard time knowing how to respond to the President’s proposals. Some they like, but some they strongly oppose, and so does Ivanka.

6. A personal prediction (few turn out to be accurate) – the President’s close advisers, Bannon, Priebus, Conway, Spicer and Miller are unlikely to hold these positions a year from now. They helped to shape the campaign rhetoric but may not be the most adept advisors for governing.

7. Leading firms in the mainstream media are labelled as providing ‘fake news” when they criticize the new administration. These firms seem to be hanging in and retaining their influence and may become the most effective critics of the government.

Prediction – Marie Le Pen will win the French election.

What does populism mean?

February 22, 2017

Populism is a loosely defined term which seems to refer to actions taken by any group within a society which is fed up with conditions affecting them, low wages, unemployment, refugees, immigration and so on.

It is used to describe the reasons for Brexit in the UK, terrorism/racism/immigrants and unequal income distribution in the US, and refugees and related conditions in countries such as France, the Netherlands, Italy and even Germany.

In Canada, according to Wikipedia, populist movements describe the Social Credit and the Reform Party in Alberta, Creditistes, the Union Nationale and PQ in Quebec, the federal Liberal party under Prime Ministers Mackenzie and Laurier, labour parties leading up to the CCF and NDP, and support for various premiers of Ontario.

This seems to be rather all inclusive referring to any time when a group in society becomes activated and organizes politically. It merely describes contemporary political conditions. A recent case of populism today would be Ford Nation in Toronto, where one segment of the city feel that they are taxed for the benefit of another. The Ford brothers used this to their political advantage.

It does not seem to be a useful term unless the reasons for it are given.

Political correctness beyond understanding

November 28, 2016

Political correctness (PC) has gone rogue. Anything said by anyone that is conceived as mildly offensive to someone else is today often deemed to be off limits for discussing or even mentioning. The consequences for intelligent and informed debate are chilling, and reminiscent of what successful dictators attempt and often achieve, at least until their demise. The new Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Louise Richardson, in favour of promoting robust debate over contentious issues, stated that educational institutions are “places where we should hear any legal speech, and we should teach our students how to confront any speech which you (they) find objectionable.”

The Vice-Chancellor has specialised in studying and publishing on terrorism while holding academic positions on both sides of the Atlantic. Her research on terrorism and its causes culminated in an acclaimed 2006 book What Terrorists Want, described by the New York Times as an “essential primer on terrorism and how to tackle it”. In the 1970s, she was recruited by the student branch of the IRA, attended meetings and discussions but decided not to join as she could not endorse the use of violence.

If PC is given a free rein, it will ultimately restrict informed debate and support conditions for a type of theocracy to prevail that will suppress the discussion needed to stimulate understanding, especially regarding social (political and economic), cultural and scientific issues. We see this already in the field of climate change and global warming where not only deniers but sceptics are widely considered to be beyond the pale as they are told the “science is settled.” As opponents of Galileo found out, the science is never settled.

 

 

 

Where the light does not shine

November 21, 2016

One of the more interesting pieces on the 2016 US election is by David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker. It is available online at:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2

The short video that follows it is worth watching as well.

 

Like others, journalists and non-journalists, Remnick failed to forecast the outcome, and is now commenting on the future, mainly for the US. He views it bleakly but cautions, as Orwell did during the 1930s, against despair.

The prospect is bleak for the US and other countries, but before peering ahead it might be useful to consider the counterfactual. What would have happened if Clinton and the Democrats had won? The outcome would have been that about half the US population that bothered to vote (turnout was 58% of the 224 million electorate, so 94 million did not vote), would be reacting with disgust and demonstrating their disappointment.

 

  1. The so-called Republican supporters (now in opposition) would consist of all those who voted Republican. They were Trump supporters and Sanders supporters, both of whom were protesting against the way Washington politics operates.
  2. This combination of Trump supporters (now on the losing side) would have protested that the election was rigged, and had resulted in the continuation of politics under Democratic leadership, which had held the Presidency for the past eight years and had failed to recognize the plight of many lower income Americans.
  3. Resentment would have increased and politics become even more toxic with unforeseen consequences at the next election. It would not have been a pretty sight.

 

Considering the counterfactual is not to welcome the actual outcome, but to use it as a warning for what might have happened, what could still happen, and what needs to change during the current administration, and by the traditional Democrat and Republican parties prior to the next election.

There are now two wings to both parties. For the Democrats there are the Clinton and Sanders supporters; many of the latter said that they would not have supported Clinton if Sanders was not the candidate. For the Republicans, there are those like McConnell/Ryan, and the Tea-Party group like Sarah Palin and possibly Ted Cruz (who may be a party of one as no-one seems to like him, although he is recognized as being smart).

Will the party structures change? I have no idea, but some sort of change seems to be in the wind. The media, traditional and online, will change as people adjust to how they receive information. At the moment, the shock of the results and a focus on Trump, his cabinet and advisers, exercises the media. In time, political and economic conditions in the US and the rest of the world will hopefully receive more attention.

In Canada, there is a certain smugness that it happened there and not here, and some Americans are talking about moving north as they did during times of slavery in the South and the Vietnam war. A fleeting acquaintance with what happened globally since 1900 should discourage a leaning towards smugness.

When your keys are lost, you look under the street lamp because that is where it is brightest.  You may need to look in the shadows. The same is the case for the fallout from the election. Some of the dark spots may be more revealing, like the number who did not bother to vote.

Déjà vu

November 15, 2016

Two events come to mind as providing some sort of precedent to the 2016 US election, the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and its impact on the Soviet Union and satellite countries, and events leading up to and following the French Revolution, 1789 to 1799. In both instances, pressures built up leading to a volcanic type explosion which became visible on the surface but where the causes lay underground.

The establishment media and almost all of the rest of us failed to appreciate what was happening in the US, because we were not looking at or listening to what half the population was saying. A few were, such as Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore. Sanders sits in the Senate as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He raised a large amount of money in small donations with a crowd-sourcing type process. Moore is a documentary film maker who is skilled at covering topics ignored by the mainstream media.

 

The former Soviet Union

The 1989 demise of the Soviet Union has been followed by almost three decades of change for member countries which are now more or less independent. The transition has not always been smooth. Aside from foreign relations, what happened within each country was a change of the domestic political scene, generally towards democracy except in those places which are now part of Russia. It was a major upheaval as the countries of eastern Europe became more democratic.

America had a revolution in 1776, but this was a revolt against an external force, British control, and was not a result of dissatisfaction within the country as is the case today. Its success gave impetus to events in Europe.

 

The French Revolution

The French Revolution beginning in 1789 suggests parallels. It was an internal uprising by groups in French society which rebelled against their rulers and the prevailing economic and social conditions. It lasted for ten years and brought about change, but it also led to the rise and rule of Napoleon until his defeat in June 1815 at Waterloo.

The process was messy. On the positive side, it ushered in democracy to France – freedom of religion, legalization of divorce, decriminalization of same-sex relationships, civil rights for Jews and black people, plus the execution in 1793 of Louis XII.

A couple of short extracts on the French Revolution from Wikipedia suggest comparable circumstances to today’s US with of course different institutional factors in play.

Many other factors involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals. These included resentment of royal absolutism; resentment by peasants, labourers and the bourgeoisie towards the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by the nobility; resentment of the Catholic Church’s influence over public policy and institutions; aspirations for freedom of religion; resentment of aristocratic bishops by the poorer rural clergy; aspirations for social, political and economic equality, and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism.

Louis XVI ascended to the throne in the middle of a financial crisis in which the state was faced with a budget deficit and was nearing bankruptcy. This was due in part to France’s costly involvements in the Seven Year’s War and the American Revolution. 

…the country’s extremely regressive tax system subjected the lower classes to a heavy burden, while numerous exemptions existed for the nobility and clergy. He argued that the country could not be taxed higher; that tax exemptions for the nobility and clergy must be reduced; and proposed that borrowing more money would solve the country’s fiscal shortages. Necker (finance minister) published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36 million livres…

 

So, parts of the world have been here before. How it will all play out, and throw in Brexit and upcoming elections in Europe, is a mystery to me. But there are similar circumstances to suggest parallels.

 

 

Trump plus 4

November 12, 2016

It can be a mistake to focus on leaders and not on their supporters. Looking back, why did we and most pollsters get it wrong? A few did not, but they were ignored and often reviled by the mainstream media and few listened to them. Some thoughts on this, in no particular order.

 

  1. Clinton ended up with a majority of the overall vote but not enough electoral college votes. The so-called battleground states like Florida and North Carolina went Republican, and the Democrats picked up far fewer senate and house seats than had been forecast. The pollsters got it wrong at all three levels.
  2. If you add Trump supporters to those of Bernie Sanders, it constitutes about half the US electorate. When questioned at Sanders’ rallies, most said that if Sanders lost they would not vote for Clinton, a situation that received little coverage in the press.
  3. Trump supporters did not necessarily like his electioneering performance, but there was no way they were going to support the Washington establishment to which Clinton was seen to belong.
  4. The Democrats had held the White House for eight years and nothing had improved for a large chunk of the population, and so they felt that it was time for a change. The Democrats were past their best before date. In a sense Obama had failed them. During the past two years, he had done very little and was very popular. What does that tell us?
  5. Trump rallies witnessed enthusiastic supporters, while Clinton rallies, especially towards the end were smaller and generated little excitement. This was not reported in the press.
  6. The press became supporters of a Clinton win, and refused to take seriously anyone with a contrary opinion. The press and their pundits ended up looking biased and foolish.
  7. When he was on political message, Trump identified the concerns of a large segment of the electorate and did so without offering more than general solutions, such as to make America great again. They bought it and now await the how. Maybe they had little to lose.
  8. Michael Moore has, for me, one of the more persuasive explanations of what happened and why almost no one forecast the outcome (see Moore interviewed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe). J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy – A memoir of a family and culture in crisis (2016) is another book worth reading. Now we await similar developments in Europe.

 

Clumpout one day to go

November 6, 2016

Be grateful to Trump for the favour he has bestowed. Regardless of the outcome, along with Bernie Sanders, Trump has mobilized about half of the US electorate to tell us that the American political system, at least in Washington, is malfunctioning and in need of major repair. No matter who wins on November 8th, that toxic situation will remain and is now visible to all.

The next administration will have a difficult time of governing depending on the membership of the House and Senate, and appointments to the Supreme Court. The elected members no longer belong to two parties, at least on the Republican side, where the Tea Party gang is willing to shut down the government by failing to authorize funding for government operations. And for Democrat supporters there are now two branches of the party, represented by those who in the primaries supported Clinton and those who supported Sanders….in a sense there are now four parties not two.

My guess, with one day to go, is that Clinton will win the presidency, and perhaps the Democrats the Senate but not the House. But the electorate has a way of surprising the country as shown recently, for example, by Brexit in the UK, and the large number of Liberals elected in the last Canadian federal election.

In an election where both candidates are unpopular, some voters will stay at home. Democrats who don’t vote will be giving support to the Republican candidate, and vice versa for stay at home Republicans. For this reason, pre-election polls are frequently wrong, and because voters don’t want to reveal their choices. While the outcome is uncertain, what is clear is that Washington is in bad need of a makeover, and that while this happens Canada and other countries are likely to be sideswiped, especially as trade liberalization is no longer a popular goal.

 

Clump minus 10 – Déjà vu all over again

October 28, 2016

Some Republican voters are threatening violence in the event that their candidate loses on Nov 8th. Similar responses have been heard before in recent years in different parts of the world leading to unpleasant outcomes.

How do nasty people come to power? Usually it is because they have either legitimate or some degree of public support. And that seems to be the situation in the US where the Republican candidate for the presidency has the undivided support of thirty to forty percent of the electorate. What he would do with that support, if elected, is of concern to Canadians, and if he is not elected they should still be concerned since that support remains. A review of the fairly recent past is instructive of what might happen.

Consider some of the leading nasties of my lifetime. Mussolini (1883-1945) and Hitler (1889-1945) were voted into office and then destroyed the institutions and procedures which had given them power. Franco (1892-1975) gained power through a military coup, and then exercised dictatorial powers with the help of the Catholic Church, and his Italian and German allies amongst others. Stalin (1878-1953) and Mao Zedong (1893-1976) seized power after civil wars and never let go. Italy, Germany and Spain over time evolved into functioning democracies, while Russia and China remain totalitarian states.

Where are the good guys? Churchill (1874-1965) affirmed that some form of parliamentary democracy was the least-worst of known political systems. It provided a political beacon to numerous countries, both within and outside the former British Empire, and is practiced there today. When the time came, he was voted out of office.

In the US in recent years, both Roosevelt (1882-1945) and Eisenhower (1890-1969) provided democratically sanctioned political leadership. Roosevelt died in office, while Eisenhower left after completing two terms as President.

Two other politicians of note (and there are many others) are Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) and Nelson Mandela (1918-2013). Both had unusual paths to power, but left behind functioning democracies, although with various blemishes.

Freedom House rates countries and populations on their freedom in several dimensions. The long run trend is for greater freedom globally, but in the last ten years 105 countries have experienced a net decline in freedom while 61 have seen a net increase (Freedom House website).

The political scene in the US after the election will not be a pretty one whoever wins. All countries will be affected in the aftermath.