Dougie Jekyll And Gordie McHyde

Canada has entered a spat with the United States. Of course, it’s not a common thing for us to be in a spat with anyone. Yes, we've had plenty of disputes with the US, but they’re usually esoteric trade issues that get fought in a court. National leaders taking shots at each other? Not our style.

People sometimes bring up our territorial dispute with Denmark over Hans Island. The Canadian government says it should be ours because it is part of the Northern Archipelago which was claimed by Britain and inherited by Canada. The Danes say it should be theirs because it is closer to Greenland, which they own. This “dispute” amuses others because of the comically low-key way that it is fought. That is, it’s “fought” by each nation occasionally sending a ship to the island to take down the other country’s flag and put up their own.

It may surprise outsiders, but there are those in Canada who don't like our low key approach. I'm not talking politicians - those in government who want a more active role are still confined by the limited tax base of a country that won't put up with the military taking up half our budget. So their get-tough attitude comes out as a commitment to buy 7 destroyers instead of the 6 that those wimpy liberals would have bought.

No, I'm thinking of the talk of average people, in coffee shops, living rooms, and online. Most Canadians appreciate our civility, but you occasionally come across folks who think we need to be more forceful, that we should go in to Hans Island guns blazing and set up a Tim Hortons.

But here's what makes this week's American dispute interesting: the subsection of Canadians that longs for aggression overlaps with populist conservatives who generally love the United States and would like us to be closer to them. Of course, most of the time this correlation works out fine; The US is the poster child for aggressive foreign policy, and the easiest way for us Canadians to get more aggressive would be to tag along on their latest adventure.

So what are they supposed to do when we're having a tiff with their beloved American role models? I swear I could hear heads exploding all over the country as they tried to solve that puzzle . It's made worse by the fact that the attack on the Great White North was entirely the creation of Donald Trump, a great aggressive role model.

I was kind of worried what I might see online: so often these days, political sides trump all else, so I wondered how many conservative Canadians might take Trump's side in all this. In the past I've been disappointed that many politically naive Canadians have assumed that their mild distaste for a pretty-boy PM is the equal of the ideological diametric opposite in the White House. But to my surprise, people have been coming out in support of Trudeau. Even self-professed Trump admirer Doug Ford took Trudeau's side.

So maybe this is one of those cases where the political sides are going to start realigning. If a Republican president can be anti-trade, maybe Canadian conservatives will start being anti-American.  It might be good for us if the urge to be nationally assertive could work with the desire to have a separate identity. Watch out, Denmark.

Lady Macbeth

Last fall, I was really worried about the Presidential election. Although the polls were showing Hilary in the lead, it was a little too close for comfort. So when I came across three witches in the woods, I asked them to give me a prediction.  And they said that I shouldn't worry: as of next year, for the first time, the leader of the free world will be a woman.

I found that very reassuring. So you can imagine my surprise when Trump won.  I felt extra disappointed, like the finest occult prognosticators had let me down. But now I see that they tricked me:

Well played, witches.

Let England Shake

It history, they talk about the "Great Man" theory, which is the idea that most of history is guided by a few strong individuals. Given that no one has bothered updating it to "Great Person," You can surmise that it's not a very popular view anymore. Today, historians are more likely to see the path of history guided by big movements among many people. For instance, both world wars were, on the surface, triggered by individuals. But both wars were the result of much bigger societal and economic forces, and probably would have happened eventually anyway, even if they weren't triggered as they were.

But I still find it interesting to look for those times when an individual makes a decision that impacts history. I mean a situation where the decision is not pushed by outside considerations, but instead is an individual's judgement. I'd say one example would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy and Khrushchev could have taken any of a number of actions, and that could have had huge impacts on the course of history.

Another example would be Brexit. I know, that sounds like the complete opposite of what I'm taking about. It was a referendum of a large country, not an individual's decision. But it was an individual - Prime Minister David Cameron - who decided to hold the referendum. It wasn't because of a recent change in support for the European Union in Britain; it was a calculated strategy.

British politics in general, and the Conservative Party in particular, have always suffered from the distraction of euroskeptics, those who dislike and demonize the European Union. The intention with the referendum was to get the public to agree to remain in the EU, thus disarming euroskeptics in the future, since the country would have very publicly endorsed membership in the EU.

Of course, it didn't go at all according to plan. The public surprised everyone by voting to Leave. What I find interesting in this is that Cameron's gambit has changed the direction of modern Britain, and it's all due to nothing more than timing: young people were disproportionately in favour of staying in the EU, Britain's membership in the Union would get more popular. So if Cameron had chosen a different strategy for dealing with euroskeptics, there never would have been a referendum for another decade or two. That hypothetical vote would have gone the other way. Today's young people, who mostly wanted to Remain, will eventually be the majority. But they'll live the rest of their lives in a more isolated country outside the EU, even though that wasn't their choice.

This all comes to mind because the Brexit referendum seems to have changed the entire mood in Britain. You may have already seen the reports of a troubling increase in racist attacks since the referendum, as the nation's bigots seem to feel empowered. The country's already nationalist newspapers were all-too happy to make their biases more open. But on top of that, the new post-Cameron Conservative government has embraced the anti-foreigner feeling, with disturbing promises to name and shame companies employing non-Britons.

So essentially, Cameron's strategy not only failed, it actually worked backwards: instead of discrediting the euroskeptics, the referendum discredited those who believed in a more international, interconnected country. I don't know how long this new attitude will last, but for now it appears that the entire country is going quickly in a new direction. And it's a direction that it really didn't need to go.

It certainly seems hard to stop. While all this has been going on in government, the opposition Labour Party is having its own crisis. It's currently lead by Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to be Bernie Sanders without the endearing anti-charisma. He's not popular with fellow politicians or - according to polls - the general public. But he's super popular among left-leaning people, so they put him in the position, then confirmed him when his own caucus tried to kick him out.

Of course, this sort of situation comes up a lot in politics: should the party choose the middle-of-the-road candidate the general public will like, or the ideologically-pure candidate the party members want? Essentially, both American political parties struggled with the same choice in the primaries. Yet with Labour, there seems to be no one arguing for moving to a leader that's more palatable to the electorate. Of course I don't know all the nuances of the situation, but in the discussion online, I've noticed that when anyone argues for centrism, Corbyn's supporters are quick to invoke the name of Tony Blair.

Their view seems to be that Blair made the deal that if the party moved to the centre, they could get into power, even if they didn't get everything the membership wanted. That worked, until he made the uber-blunder of joining George W. Bush's war in Iraq. That move wasn't merely unpopular, it was everything the party membership hated. Honestly, it was worse to them than anything Margaret Thatcher ever did. So Labour Party members felt like they'd been tricked into electing a might-as-well-be-Conservative government. That's poisoned the concept of moving to the political centre, and it is a non-starter among party members. Every liberal party may have is hardliners who say that moderates like Hillary Clinton are no better than their conservative opponents, but at Labour, they appear to believe it.

So all together, it seems like the United Kingdom has really lost it. But really, the crumbling seems to be concentrated in England. Scotland had far less problems with post-referendum hate crimes. And they voted solidly to stay, so now they're eying the exits. And people started talking about Irish reunification. And you know things are bad when even Wales is talking about leaving. But that's where they make Doctor Who. Great, another British institution that could pay the price.

England's problems are deeper than politics and economics; it's beloved soccer team has been a sort of metaphor for the country recently, first getting booted from the Euros by small but united Iceland, then losing their new coach after just one match thanks to bizarre bragging about rule-breaking. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that England has Jumped the Shark. Or, whatever the national equivalent of jumping the shark is. Actually, this could coin a new phrase. I suspect that centuries from now, people will be saying that China is no longer the country it once was, and that maybe it's "Voted to Leave."

Low Marks From The Canadian Judge

One of the awkward aspects of the Olympics is that there is little correlation between athlete's efforts and rewards. To get good enough to win an Olympic medal, you have to work incredibly hard starting from a young age, passing on a lot of the rites of passage growing up. Your reward is huge but very brief fame. Yes, you definitely have to work hard to be successful at professional team sports as well, but it's easier to envision those athletes having happier lives. They get rewarded with lots of money, and it's easier to believe that they get enjoyment out of their sport. For an olympian in one of the simpler racing or strength sports, a competitor spends their young life repeating this same mind-numbing event, gets a huge but brief fame after winning a medal, and then suddenly has to decide what to do with the rest of their life.

That's why I was a little alarmed to see the recent P&G ad featuring a Chinese diver getting chewed-out by his coach. His mother tells him somewhat dispationately that he still has what it takes, and then he goes on to win. It's supposed to be heartwarming, but it gets much too close to my worry that Olympic athletes' dedication goes beyond sanity. It's bad enough with our own athletes, but I've always felt uncomfortable when it comes to athletes from totalitarian governments that see athletic prowess as a national priority. The thought that these competitors are getting pushed by perfectionist coaches is not plesant, even if they do ocassionally get parental pep-talks from a distance.

Of course, you wouldn't have seen this sort of thing during the Cold War. I mean, they might have done a commercial making us feel good about enemies comming together to compete in peace, but you wouldn't have seen any validation of the opponent's methods. Can you imagine an ad with an East German mother holding her teenage son's hand to reassure him while getting his first steroid injection?

I fear that this is a result of our modern business world. If you're a global brand associating itself with a global event, you need ads that play in all places. Or, rather, play in all markets. And sometimes that means glorifying China's relentless drive for perfection. Lest you think I'm being West-centric here, let me point out that I encourage the mixing of the world's cultures, but we really should export only the positive aspects of our cultures. For instance, it's wrong to hate on Americans, but it's hard to disagree with people who resent them dumping violent movies or vapid fast food on the rest of the world.

State Of The Nation

Turkey's government survived a coup this week. It didn't seem to be a very well-organized coup, since they broke the number-one rule of coups: be successful or else. Having been unable to remove President Erdogan from power, he immediately started punishing anyone involved.

I'm not a big fan of the military seizing power, but that had me a little worried.  Erdogan has shown that he has few scruples when there's a chance to get ahead.  He angered western powers last year when the Turkish army used the fight against ISIS as a cover to attack Kurds, even though the Kurds are attacking ISIS. So when news came out that thousands were being arrested following the coup attempt, it was easy to be suspicious, especially when a lot of the first people arrested were judges, which seemed odd following a military action.  And in the days since, the crackdown has gotten bigger and bigger, involving people in more and more disconnected occupations, like journalists and teachers.

People were already worrying that Erdogan was trying to become a dictator, now it looks like he's just made a huge leap towards that goal.  It's hard to believe that Turkey was on the doorstep of joining the European Union only a few years ago, and were modernizing laws to fit in.  One thing they did was eliminate the death penalty, a move they are now planing on reversing.  That essentially sends the message that Erdogan and Turkey would rather have their strongman-cult-of-personality relationship than be in Europe.  It's easy to see how that's going to start a vicious circle, in which Turkey's decent into dictatorship fuels the fear-mongering about Muslims in Europe, which will lead to resentment in Turkey, and give the government more license to do things that piss-off Europe.

So too bad for Turkey. They had a pretty good run for a hundred years there.  The other country that seems to be imploding is Venezuela.  Their economy has been in trouble for a while, but the crashing price of oil has caused an economic disaster.  Not only are many people facing economic hardship, but basic structures of society are starting to fail: Electricity is being shut off periodically, and hospitals are running out of supplies.

Of course, Venezuela has already had its popular leader who fancied himself a dictator, Hugo Chavez.  He never quite made it to absolute control.  He also died three years ago, but his leadership is still being felt.  While his policies were nice to the poor, they were often poorly thought out.  The big hint that something was wrong came a few years ago when news came out that Venezuela was importing coffee.  If you know your geography, you know that Venezuela is right next to Colombia, and thus should have no trouble growing lots of coffee. But when Chavez fixed the price of coffee, farmers couldn't make money off it, and looked for other crops.

This is a good example of the effect of a government's competence. We think of a dictator as damaging his country through abuse.  That's a big problem, but they can also hurt through disorganization.  Take Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and North Korea's Kims.  They've done lots of harm to citizens branded political enemies.  But they've arguably caused more human misery through their mismanagement of the economy.  Zimbabwe suffered through hyperinflation, and North Korea is the only industrialized society to have a famine.

It's not clear how Venezuela is going to get out of this, either. The government is trying to fix things to help their citizens, but the nation itself is close to defaulting on their debt.  As with many countries with oil, they've come to rely too much on the wealth that comes from the resource: the drop in price erases a large section of the economy overnight.

Both Turkey and Venezuela looked to be part of the wave of rapidly-industrializing economic success stories, but now they've lost their way severely.  It illustrates just how fragile our societies can be.  They rely on a lot of checks and balances, agreements, and collective will to keep them going.  Though most countries have been quite resilient, pushing them too far can send them careening into disaster.  It's something to think about at a time when so many people have decided that our circumstances are bad enough that we must make radical changes.

Did You Lie When You Spoke To Me?

The United Kingdom voted to Brexit rather than Bremain, and now there's a lot of Bregrets. Many people were horrified to find that the second most popular Google Query from Britain the day after was "what is the EU?" This comes as Nigel Farage admits that his claim about the amount of money going to the EU was wildly inaccurate and pro-leave campaigners are admitting that immigration levels won't really go down. I'm left wondering how much of this big decision was actually based on any real facts.

(As an aside, I was surprised that the New Yorker cover somehow linked Brexit to John Cleese. So it wasn't just me.)

Now there are several news reports coming in of "Leave" voters who regret their vote. I suppose it's understandable that a person will question a big decision, but some are coming right out and saying that they didn't actually want Britain to leave, even though they voted for it. So if, like me, you wish the referendum had gone the other way, you can at least console yourself with the knowledge that these morons will get exactly what they deserve.

By the way, I wish the media would be more responsible and not broacast things like that. There could be aliens listening in, studying us. If they hear humans say, "I wouldn't have voted for X if I'd known X was going to win," it not only reduces the chances the aliens will see us as worthy of communication, it greatly increases the chances that they'll finally decide we're too dangerous and just nuke us from orbit.

These voters with Brexiter's Remorse help to explain what happened in the vote. Many were confident that "Remain" would win, even though the polls kept showing it as a dead heat. So why did they think that? You might think it was just the arrogance of "The Elites" who are supposedly the only people in favour of European integration, and forcing it upon everyone. And that's the interpretation that some journalists have decided to accept. But the sudden market corrections that came after the vote show that people who had a financial stake in predicting the result got it wrong anyway. Again, you might say that even though they had incentive to get it right, they were still elites out of touch with the common person. Well, fine, but there was another group that had a financial interest in getting it right, and are not part of these devious elites: The bookies. They still had "Leave" as 4:1 underdogs right up to the end.

The reason for the over-confidence was that voters tend to shy away from more radical stances in the last days of a campaign. I once heard a Canadian pundit call it the "NDP Swerve." The voter tells pollsters that they're mad as hell, and going to vote for the NDP, then gets in to the voting booth, and says, "what am I thinking, I can't vote for the NDP!" And goes back to the same party they always vote for. Along similar lines, there was an assumption that the "Leave" campaign was going to lose a few percent at least from whatever the polls were showing.

But it didn't happen. There was no swerve. And judging from the comments of regretful voters, it's because those angry voters didn't have their big change of heart in the booth, because they didn't think it would matter. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us: There have been lots of times recently when voters seem to be voting to "send a message" that doesn't really correspond to what they're actually voting on. They may use a referendum to pass judgement on the current government, rather than the actual issue. And various Quebec elections and referendum votes have been based on messages to various governments or grabbing leverage, rather than the (seemingly important) issue of separation.

So that's why some people are serious about wanting a second, this-time-we-mean-it referendum. Personally, I don't like that idea, even if it would be a second chance at the outcome I prefered. Aside from, you know, principles and crap like that, there's the dangerous precident. This referendum has shown everyone on Earth what happens when you don't take your votes seriously. A do-over would give flaky voters the confidence to make more silly votes they don't mean with whatever imagined intentions behind them. Whatever else it is, the Brexit vote is a great teachable moment for democracies everywhere. It's unfortunate we had to sacrifice a large country to do so, but if it convinces Americans not to protest-vote for Trump, it will be worth it.

Having said that, here's a scenario that wouldn't surprise me: The British government now has to negotiate a departure from the European Union, while also negotiating new treaties with countries and trading blocs around the world to maintain the same access to markets they had in the EU. That's probably going to take longer than expected, especially when you consider than the EU is probably going to make the negotiations difficult to make an example of the UK for any other countries thinking about their own exits. And there's the problem that the next British government(s) are going to have to make a lot of painful changes to get ready for separation. Let's say this all takes five years instead of the two that the pro-Brexit crowd has planned on. After such a long time, and with negotiations probably taking place under a new government, there might actually be a reasonable case to have a second referendum on the completed deal.

Would there be a different result on that one? It's hard to say. They will have seen a preview of what the UK economy will be like outside of Europe, and the initial signs are that it won't be pretty. But the flip side is that a sinking economy could just increase the anger and fear that the far right thrives on. If any of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate, that will remove a whole lot of "Remain" voters (note that England voted to Leave by a fairly large margin.) But then there's the age demographic. A few more years will allow demographics to shift a little more towards the younger, pro-EU voters.

So You Got To Go And Text It / Should I Remain Or Should I Brexit?

On Thursday, the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to stay in the European Union or to leave.

I haven't really followed it closely, and I don't have real strong opinions either way. I've kind of instinctively supported the "Remain" side because:

• I generally support people working together rather than walking away because they can't get along.
• All the stupid people are supporting "Leave"

Of course, the latter is a silly reason to support something; just because the stupid, childish, and intellectually-lazy like something doesn't make it bad. I started to realize this when I saw that John Cleese is in favour of leaving. Sure, he's no political expert, and despite being a geek, I'm not a Monty Python fanboy who takes his word as gospel. But he does seem to be fairly thoughtful and intelligent. And in the same way that I don't trust the stupid, I do tend to trust the funny.

So I thought I'd look up what other famous Britons have said on the issue. I know, I may seem like the last person to make a serious decision based on the word of celebrities, but I'm treating this as an experiment to see if I can get a feel for the issue based just on the kind of people supporting it.  Here's a small sample

Stay

David Cameron (Prime Minister)
Tim Berners-Lee (creator of the World Wide Web)
Billy Bragg (singer)
Simon Cowell
Jeremy Clarkson (former Top Gear host)
Bob Geldoff
Eric Idle
Ian McKellen
JK Rowling
Emma Thompson
Stephen Hawking
Richard Branson
Alex Kapranos (singer, Franz Ferdinand)
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Izzard
Helena Bonham Carter
John LeCarre
Jude Law
Keira Knightly
Philip Pullman (writer, His Dark Materials)
Richard Curtis (screenwriter, Mr. Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral)
John Hurt
Derek Jacobi
Patrick Stewart
Steve Coogan (comic actor, Philomena, 24 Hour Party People)
Peter Higgs (of the famous boson)
Arsene Wenger (longtime Arsenal manager)
Danny Boyle (director, Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire)
Daniel Craig
Daisy Ridley (Rey from The Force Awakens)
Idris Elba
Chiwetel Ejiofor (actor, 12 Years a Slave)
Lily Allen (singer)
John Major (former Prime Minister)
Gary Lineker (former soccer player)
Chris Martin (singer, Coldplay)
John Oliver (comedian, Last Week Tonight; here's his take on a Brexit)
Florence Welch (of, "and the Machine" fame)
Alt J (music group)
Peter Gabriel
Elton John
David and Victoria Beckham

Leave

Boris Johnson (former London mayor)
Bernie Ecclestone (Formula 1 CEO)
Rupert Murdoch (media tycoon)
Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder)
Michael Caine
John Cleese
Joan Collins
Roger Daltrey (singer, The Who)
Bruce Dickinson (singer, Iron Maiden)
Peter Hitchens (journalist, brother of the late Christopher)
Elizabeth Hurley
Right Said Fred
Irvine Welsh (writer, Trainspotting)
Milo Yiannopoulos (controversial blogger)
Sol Campbell (soccer player)
James Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame)
Julian Fellows (Downtown Abbey creator)
Ian Botham (former cricket star)

And here is Wikipedia's even more comprehensive list. So here's my reaction to the lists:

• Really? Morrissey doesn't have an opinion on this?
• I wonder if Cleese and Idle have clashed on this, and will they sell tickets?
• There's a surprising mix on both sides.  Both have their side of intellectuals, and both the lovable and hatable. 
• Though there are old and young on both sides, the Leave side seems to be older on average.

In my still poorly-informed and ultimately irrelevant opinion, I'd still stick to the remain side.

Pax Canadiana

What am I supposed to write about tonight?  The latest annoying TV commercial? Political analysis? Something about cars? Wait, what's that, Bloomberg has an article predicting Canada could be the next superpower? Drop everything, that's the topic.

The argument is threefold: first is resources, which we have plenty of. But I don't really buy that as a reason for gaining power. I could point out that the Middle East has lots of resources, but it's mostly just got them empty displays of wealth, plus invasions by the countries with actual power. But mainly I dismiss the argument because my ancestors came from a glorified rock off the coast of Europe and came to dominate the world for a century. When it comes down to it, the powerful can buy, borrow, or steal whatever resources they need.

The second point is that we have a relatively efficient, effective and trusted government. (I'll pause now so my Canadian readers can stop laughing.) Note that I said relatively. As I've mentioned before, we seem to be far more able to get things done than our American and European brethren. I'd like to think that we can keep that up, but I feel like the partisanship and risk-aversion that have paralyzed other western nations threaten us too. We merely seem to be less far along the road to political stalemate.

His third point, immigration, is the most compelling. Our immigration rate remains high. For one thing, that will remedy the biggest argument against our world domination: our relatively small population. But a diverse population has tended to be a trait of innovative times and places.

I do think that is our strongest characteristic at the moment. And it's accented by the fact that Europe, Australia and Japan are strongly anti-immigrant to the point of xenophobia, relight at the time they should be letting more people in to avoid demographic disaster caused by crashing birthrates. The Americans have recently been rather paranoid on immigration issues, though to be fair, it seems like they could be softening in that issue. But if they don't, Canada could be left as the only big developed-world immigration destination.

As for other world powers, it's easy to imagine Europe fumbling away their power with indecisiveness, mistrust, and poor planning. Japan arguably already has done that with its inability to reform its economy. Then there's the Americans. For all the talk of their decline, I still believe they have a lot of life left in them, but who knows how well they'll deal with their current ideological schism. And they appear to be one Rick-Perry-with-charisma from disaster.

Then there are the developing nations. Though most assume China's dominance is a foregone conclusion, I'm far more sure that:

1. Their economic boom can't last forever.
2. The people will demand democracy eventually, and
3. #2 will probably happen right after #1.

I still have my money on the dark horse India for world domination, but they have political fragility, cultural diversity, corruption, and portly distributed wealth. As for the rest of the BRICS, it's appearing that their wealth is greatly based resource sales due to the growth of China.

Of course that brings up perhaps the best argument against Canadian dominance: our economy has always ridden the coattails of the Americans, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where we replace a fading America, given that we'd likely fade right along with them. One would have to count on the idea that an influx of global talent would take us out of our traditional branch-plant mentality.

So it's not too likely that Canada would be a superpower. It’s possible, but would take a lot of things falling just right. And that’s just to be a relatively big power; I don’t think there’s any scenario where we would end up facing off against, say, South Korea in a new Cold War.