Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes a statement about the wildfires in Western Canada in Charlottetown, Sunday, Aug. 20, 2023. He and the rest of his cabinet is in the city for a retreat beginning Monday. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Brian McInnis
I am merely a simple man, so I don’t understand the doings of my betters. We are in a climate emergency; I must give up decadent items like plastic wrapped meat to save the planet; however, the government packs up the whole cabinet along with the standard assortment of security, aides and advisors and ships them off to PEI for a Cabinet meeting. How many planes did this take? Why could this meeting not happen in Ottawa when they are all in the city? Are they not worried about their carbon footprint. Why does it seem like they are doing the sort of thing they have passed taxes to disincentivize?
Truthfully, the Ministers meeting offsite is fine with me. It is the hypocrisy of a jet-setting elite imposing evergrowing costs on such things for us. Just as there is the hypocrisy of the elites saying they are worried about high housing and rental costs while profiting from being landlords. 31% of the ministers in the new cabinet are landlords.
The line on the government website is that the carbon tax is a price on carbon pollution. Such a tax is most visible when we use carbon directly, such as by gassing up our cars or heating our homes; however, it works its way into almost every aspect of your life. Food and other goods need to be shipped, which uses fuel. Those costs will be passed on to you. Everything will get more expensive, and that is the point. The taxes have to cause pain to enough people that they change their behaviour. This means eating less meat, driving less, putting off holidays, and delaying significant purchases. “By 2030, when the price of carbon is expected to reach $170 per tonne, most households will see a net loss, despite the rebate payments offered by the federal government to offset the surcharge.” Guilbeault says the rich will pay more because they consume more. This is true, but they are not the ones who will have to scale back their lifestyles; they pay for their sins like old-time Catholics paying for indulgences. They will be able to pay the price to keep their lifestyle or have it paid for by the taxpayers. How much more will it have to hurt before you have to adjust your lifestyle?
I am writing to clarify my thoughts on whether the liberal democracies are in decline, are our best days over, and will my daughter have to settle for a lower standard of living moving into the future?
Liberal democracies are facing the rise of geopolitical challengers and have seen increasing illiberalism internally on both sides of the political spectrum. Could they tear themselves apart through internal struggles or fall behind the other global powers? Is this inevitable? Is the best we can hope for is a gradual and genteel decline?
I hope not. Besides being my selfish reasons for wanting continual growth, prosperity and freedom, it is better for the world as a whole that we remain so. While things are not looking great right now, some historical perspective might help.
The liberal democratic order has seemed in danger before. The late ’60s and 70s and early ’80s were a time of tension, with civil unrest, unpopular and unsuccessful wars, economic stagflation and global communism on the march. Crime in the US spiked, and people felt the civil order was collapsing. The movies of the period and the early 80s resonated with distrust of government and society decay. Yet just over a decade later, the USSR had fallen, democracy was rising worldwide, and the West’s technological abilities were light years ahead of the rest of the world. The USA was left as the world’s hyperpower and political scientists had declared liberal democracy had won, and we had reached the end of history.
In the ’30s, the Western liberal democracies were suffering through the economic crisis of the great depression; strongmen like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin seemed like models of the future and imperial Japan on the march. Yes, it required World War Two to reestablish liberal democracies as the primary force in the world and a bulwark against the forces of communism. Still, we emerged from that crisis in a much stronger position that looked possible a decade earlier.
The point of these two examples is that liberal democracy is often counted out but has proven highly resilient, and it would be a mistake to assume the worst currently. But Liberal democracy does not just survive because it is destined to; it requires that its citizens believe in it and, if needed, fight for it.
Firstly, let’s get the Canadian thing out of the way. I am a Canadian, born and bred, so why do I care about American politics? There are two significant reasons. One, I studied political science in university and have always found the combative nature of American politics interesting with its checks and balances. This fractious system also makes it entertaining in a way that Canadian politics is not, at least to me. I follow Canadian politics closely because I live here, not because it is fun. The other reason is that the States are still the world’s foremost power. While there are challengers, I am looking at you, China, and also-rans like Russia; the US is the world leader, and what they do has global impacts in a way that other nations do not. They shape foreign policy, technology and culture in a way that other countries do not. For this reason, their politics requires observation to understand what is happening in the world.
I am not anti-American and believe they have been a force for good and stability in the post-war era. Are they perfect? No. Have mistakes been made? Sure, lots of them. But overall, I hope they do well because it is best for their global order if they do.
With the long preamble about why I care about who will be the next President out of the way, let’s get on with why I am worried. Right now, both Former President Trump and current President Biden look like they are on the glide path to being their respective party nominees. Neither should be, and the states would be better off with someone else in charge.
Trump neither has the character nor intellect to be President again. I know that Trump people love him, and I understand why; they think he is a tribune of the people, fighting for them against a corrupt and immoral order. He is the wrong person to do this as he, himself, is a dishonest and immoral person. His election denials and actions on January 6th show him unworthy of the position. His narcissism and unpredictability make it dangerous to have him back in power. His tendency to admire thugs and strongmen is worrisome.
He needs to be defeated in the primaries as he and his followers will not believe any election result that does not put him in power. It will be dangerous if they feel they have been cheated a second time. Even more dangerous is if he is taken out through legal means. His supporters already believe the system is corrupt; what happens if they think the other side has removed their tribune and they have no electoral path to express their grievances? His being taken out in the primary is the safest way to move past the Trump era in politics.
Biden has been a foreign policy disaster. Leaving aside the current whiff of scandal with Hunter’s business deals, or the President’s age, he has overseen a disastrous foreign policy. The pullout from Afghanistan was a betrayal of those who served there, their allies who served alongside them, and the Afghan people. 158 Canadian soldiers never made it home; more carry physical and mental scars. Countless Afghans who sided with us were left behind to the tender mercies of the Taliban. Afghan women have been relegated to second-class status. It did not have to be like this. A small US presence in Afghanistan kept the Taliban in check, with the Afghan National Army doing most of the heavy lifting. It did not have to happen. Biden did it.
Afghanistan also was an embarrassment that emboldened the West’s enemies and competitors. This brings me to the second foreign policy disaster, Ukraine. Biden’s pullout and lack of firm statements on Ukraine’s sovereignty gave what Russia thought a green light to invade Ukraine. He has slow rolled military aid to support Ukraine. Approving tanks, long-range rockets, and F-16s took over a year, and these don’t just magically appear when approved. Training and supply take time. Biden gave the Russians time to build effective defensive positions, hindering the current offensive. We should have been pushing these systems to Ukraine at the start of the fighting, if not before. Biden’s approach may have caused the current round of fighting and has undoubtedly increased the length of the war and the cost in lives.
Biden’s Iran policy and desire to get a nuclear agreement on paper, regardless of the cost and effectiveness, has alienated allies and strengthened the Iranian’s position. We are entering a more dangerous world, and Biden has yet to show himself as a steady helmsman of the ship of state.
I will observe the political races, and I hope that something changes, giving Americans a better choice than Trump or Biden. The world needs someone else.
retirereadreflect.ca 