Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - February 8, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A9 SATURDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Dealing with the second American revolution H OW’S the revolution going, Canada? No other word can describe the abrupt and systematic dismantling of how govern- ment works in the world’s oldest self-governing democracy than a second American revolution. President Donald Trump — the disruptor-in-chief — is upending the established constitutional order of checks and balances in favour of an imperial presidency, unfettered and unabashed. He established DOGE — the department of government efficiency — headed by Elon Musk to radically reduce the size and scope of the US government. He is shuttering the multibillion-dollar U.S. foreign aid agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is threatening to eliminate the Department of Education. He forced the resignations or caused the firings of top non-partisan officials in the FBI, Justice Department, State Department, Consumer Finan- cial Protection Bureau and the Federal Aviation Authority, and has threatened to get rid of 1,000 employees at the Environmental Protection Agency. He fired 17 inspector-generals across govern- ment responsible for auditing and checking errant and illegal behaviour by bureaucrats and White House appointees. And, of course, he threatened devastating tar- iffs on his country’s biggest trading partners in North America, Asia and Europe causing massive economic and political angst. All in less than a month. This is a deliberate strategy called “flooding the zone.” It is revolutionary in method because it is revolutionary in goal. It is meant to overwhelm and confuse the opposition parties, media, institu- tions and the public with so much, so fast, that no one can keep up with it or oppose it. Unceasing, relentless momentum is the means; rolling over any opposition is the result. “Take Back Control” was the slogan of the Brexit campaign in Great Britain to get that coun- try out of the European Union. Taking control is what Trump’s administration is now doing. Com- bining Oval Office executive orders (50 so far, as his weapon of choice) and burrowing mega-MA- GA appointees to replace an “obstructionist deep state,” Trump is making an unprecedented bid to remake the U.S. government. Canada was not a country or even a colony during the first American revolution. It took the American Civil War of 1861-65 to help shake off our self-governing indolence and propel us into our unique form of federalism. Sir John A. Macdonald put it this way during the Confeder- ation debates: “Ever since the union was formed the difficulty of what is called ‘state rights’ has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States.” It was, of course, much more than that. But even then, proximity to America’s upheaval bore heavily on how Canada sought to govern itself. So, it is today. Trump’s disruptions, the disuniting of America, are lapping into our country. Two grand unity reckonings in Canada are now going to occur. Unity with America and unity with each other. First, is a reckoning about our economic relationship the United States, our most import- ant and, until recently, reliable friend, ally and economic partner. Trump’s capricious 25 per cent tariff threat upended 75-years of free trade arrangements with the U.S., dating back to the 1965 Auto Pact. The original FTA signed in 1989, with NAFTA in 1993, established a stable economic trading union for us with the U.S. They were meant not to just open up new markets for our goods and services, but also to protect Canada against arbitrary trade actions by codifying free trade arrangements reinforced by a dispute settlement mechanism. Deepening trade with the U.S. required then, as now, mutually agreed rules and processes to make it work. Most of all, it required an expec- tation of reliability on how our trading partners would act towards each other. That’s now gone. While we cannot and should not walk away from the world’s richest market, our lazy reliance on that market, once a no-brainer strength, is now a glaring weakness. Fixing that means confronting some hard truths about our spotty industrial com- petitiveness, weak business and labour produc- tivity and yes, nonsensical interprovincial trade barriers, that we’ve skated around for years. Second is a reckoning about our relationship with each other. It is about what kind of country and nation we wish to become and how we get there. If we are to build new economic resilience, our current approaches won’t cut it. Federalism is fractious. Canadians get that. But the past few years have tested our tolerance for that notion. From energy projects to the pandem- ic, any notion of national resolve has descended into regional bickering and political polarization. Fomented mostly, but not exclusively, by a federal government that has preached in its rhetoric and overreached in its actions. Mutual mistrust is no basis for building. And build we must if Canada is to survive and prosper through and beyond the second American revolu- tion. Here’s a little remembered fact. Donald Trump first ran for president 25 years ago in 2000. He pulled out. But his reasons for running echo to- day, writing this in a New York Times op-ed: “I felt confident that my argument that America was being ripped off by our major trade partners and that it was time for tougher trade negotiations would have resonance ….” The title of that op-ed? What I Saw at the Rev- olution. David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government. The future identity of the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives THE Manitoba Progressive Conservative party is in the midst of a leadership contest in which Obby Khan, MLA for Fort Whyte in Winnipeg is facing off against Wally Daudrich, a former two- time candidate from Morden and Churchill. The outcome of the contest will affect the identity and future electoral prospects of a party which since 1969 (the year of the first NDP victory) has lost nine times and won only six times. The last three PC governments led by premiers Pallister and Stefanson between 2016 and 2023 followed a contentious, mostly limited govern- ment policy approach, leading to a backlash from many citizens. A divisive negative campaign sent the PCs into opposition after the October 2023 election and led to the present search for a new permanent leader. These developments, along with numerous other changes in the political environment, will affect how party members see the desirable future identity of the party and how the next leader will embody that identity in his words and actions. The leadership contest might be seen as a clash between an urban, progressive, centrist candidate (Khan) and a rural, conservative, right-wing can- didate (Daudrich), but that characterization would exaggerate the ideological differences between the candidates. The conventional wisdom is that the PC party can only win more frequently by adopting a mod- erate right of centre identity based on policies and messaging which aims to bridge geographic, ideological, class and ethnic divides within the province. Along these lines, Mr. Khan claims that he will lead a “big tent” party. In contrast, Mr. Daudrich argues that past at- tempts to broaden the appeal of the party watered down its commitment to traditional conservatism. Under his leadership, the party would revert to “true conservative values.” Restoration would be symbolized by dropping the hybrid PC party label, which he argues is an oxymoron. A party cannot, in his view, be simultaneously both pro- gressive and conservative in its philosophy and policy positions. A further argument is that voters deserve a pure conservative party, not one which follows other parties to the “mushy middle.” A gradual rightward shift in the broader political culture suggests this is an opportune time to refine what the party stands for. Current strong voter support for the hardline conservatism of Pierre Poilievre, leader of the national party, is supposedly a good omen for clarifying the identity of the provincial party. In my view, seeing the leadership contest as a choice between two brands of conservatism is unduly simplified. First, there is a difference between conserva- tism as a philosophical disposition and as an ideol- ogy represented by a political party which shapes its policies, messaging and image in a competitive environment. Debating conservatism in the politi- cal arena cannot resemble an academic seminar. Second, over time and during any particular period, multiple varieties of conservative think- ing have existed within Conservative parties at the national and provincial level in Canada. The adoption of the dual PC label happened back in the 1940s under historical circumstances which cannot be reviewed here. Under that label, those parties developed evolving organizational cul- tures in which certain ideas were more ascendant at different times reflecting the changing exter- nal environment. A restorative project to return the Manitoba PC party to its supposed foundational values ignores this diversity of ideas. Also, it might be seen to diminish the impressive policy legacy of PC premier Duff Roblin (1958-1967) who governed based on the belief that a “progressive centrist” approach matched the political culture of the province at that time. Political parties are often described as groups of like-minded individuals who compete for public office, That description hides the extent to which parties act as “umbrella” associations comprised of people with a range of opinions on different topics. Accommodating such differences within the messaging and governing approaches of the PC party has been difficult, has led to infighting, and contributed to more frequent leadership changes than in the NDP. To provide some sense of the conservative tradition, here are some brief thumbnail sketches of a number of past and present belief systems within the PC party culture: Progressive (Red Tory) conservatism which supports conservative values, but accepts a role for government in terms of policies that serve a collective societal purpose. Fiscal conservatism which stands for limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, dereg- ulation and privatization of existing government functions. Social conservatism involves traditional family and religious values on issues like abortion, sexu- al identities, euthanasia etc., as well as strict law and order policies. Institutional conservatism involves respect for the principles, practices and norms of behaviour of the constitutional order, including cabinet-par- liamentary government. Populist (with streaks of libertarianism) con- servatism has strengthened recently, partly in response to the pandemic, reflecting mistrust, grievance and anger towards institutions and elites of various kinds. Calls for “common sense” in governing are part of appeals to disenchanted voters. Populism has reflected and reinforced the rise of identity politics and political correctness as powerful, divisive forces within the political culture. It is widely recognized that left-of-cen- tre parties have worked identity issues to their political advantage. Less recognized is a conser- vative variety of identity politics that capitalizes politically on a backlash to issues of identity and inclusion being brought forward. The identity of a party and the image of its leader often become fused in the public mind. Hardline adherence to any variety of conser- vatism, without a willingness to recognize and accommodate other perspectives, will not bring enduring political success in a provincial political culture which is evolving, but remains mainly moderate and pragmatic. Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba. A terrifying temperature trend I’M very cross with myself. My last two articles were about U.S. President Donald Trump saying he might invade Greenland, and then about Trump declaring that he would annex Canada (but no threat of phys- ical violence so far, just extreme economic pressure). This article, by the same token, would have been about Trump’s proposal to turn the dev- astated Gaza Strip into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” with the United States taking a “long-term ownership position.” Once a real-estate shill, always a real-estate shill. Trump does understand how the media work, however, and making fantastic and outrageous claims that have to be rebutted is the best way to keep the media from talking about what he’s really doing (i.e. removing all legal, constitutional and customary restraints on the presidency). Most journalists know what he’s up to but still feel obliged to bat away each fantasy as he throws it out. So I was going to write a third Trump piece in a row, about Trump’s vile but preposterous plans for the Gaza Strip — until I checked the Copernicus website (as I have taken to doing at the start of each month) and saw that the global tem- perature “anomaly” is now +1.75 C. Copernicus monitors the Earth for the European Union, and its website is very quick at drawing together observations from all over the planet to estimate each month’s average global temperature. The “anomaly” is how much higher that temperature is than it would have been without the greenhouse gases emitted by human civilization. Two years ago, after about a century- and-a-half of industrialization and growing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, the “anomaly” was just reaching +1.2 degrees C higher average global temperature. We would have reached +1.3 degrees, at the current rate of emissions around 2028, and +1.4 degrees around 2033. Bad, but at least predictable. Then, in June 2023, the whole Earth system took off, and in only one month the average global temperature was +1.5 degrees higher. It has never dropped back down again, and the anomaly for the whole of last year was +1.55 degrees. In the last three months of 2024, however, it was always above +1.6 degrees — and last month (January) it was +1.75. Two years ago, conventional scientific predictions put us at +1.75 C in about 2040. The media and most of their customers are ignoring this terrifying trend completely because the Tangerine Toddler is having a tantrum. A thousand words have been written and spoken about Trump’s various diversions and distractions for every single word addressing what may be an existential threat to our current global civilization. Note that I did not say “the human race,” whose survival is probably not at risk. However, somewhere above an average global temperature of +2 C mass population movements and consequent great wars are almost inevitable. That’s a political prediction, but the reason the Paris Agreement settled on a “never exceed” target of +2 C a decade ago was that between there and +3 C almost all of the feedbacks would be triggered. So it’s easy to imagine that once we pass +2 C, a succession of feedbacks may automatically and inexora - bly carry us up to +3 C. I am not saying that we are doomed, but a simple linear projection of the current warming trend would deliver us to the +2 C world by early next year. That is far from certain, of course, but it has definitely entered the realm of possibility. A wiser civilization would be discussing emergency measures right now, even if actions take longer. What actions would those be? Prompt and radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, of course, even if they inconvenience large numbers of people. But also direct measures to hold the heat down (“geoengineering”), because it’s the heat that triggers the feed- backs and the feedbacks are the killers. What are the chances that any of those actions will actually happen? I wouldn’t say none, because if I’m right this year will be far worse than last year in terms of wild weather, and next year far worse than that, and eventually enough people may actually understand what is happening and what must be done to stop it — if that is still possible. Have a nice day. Gwynne Dyer’s new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World’s Climate Engineers. GWYNNE DYER PAUL G. THOMAS DAVID MCLAUGHLIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Columnist David McLaughlin writes that the revolution is coming from inside the house — the White House, that is. ;