Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Taxing Wealth

One hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt warned Americans about, "a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men whose chief object is to hold and increase their power." So he began to tax wealth through the estate tax and the capital gains tax. The breadth and width of these taxes have been significantly reduced. Robert Reich writes:

The estate and capital gains taxes were originally designed to prevent the growth of large dynasties in the U.S. and to reduce inequality.

They’ve been failing to do that. The richest 1 tenth of 1 percent of Americans now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

The estate and capital gains taxes were originally designed to prevent the growth of large dynasties in the U.S. and to reduce inequality.

They’ve been failing to do that. The richest 1 tenth of 1 percent of Americans now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

Many of today’s super rich never did a day’s work in their lives. Six out of the ten wealthiest Americans alive today are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.

Rich millennials will soon acquire even more of the nation’s wealth.

America is now on the cusp of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in history. As wealthy boomers expire, an estimated $30 trillion will go to their children over the next three decades.

The march to make the rich richer gathers momentum. And working stiffs -- when they can find jobs -- are left behind.

Image: MinnPost

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Dippers' Choice

Yesterday, the NDP held its final leadership debate. Tim Harper gives a cogent evaluation of the four candidates:

Singh promises growth. Backers believe he will grow personally as he moves from provincial to federal politics. They also believe he will grow the party with fresh membership.

Mention the NDP leadership race to those of us who do not live in the political world, and you get a lot of blank stares. Those same people, however, know Singh.

His opponents believe if he cannot win on the first ballot, he cannot grow.

Angus has worked assiduously to court second-choice support. Caron’s team believes he can finish third, stay on the ballot and grow his support because the Quebec MP has run a strong campaign. Ashton, the only one of the four making a second bid at leadership, has run the most unabashedly leftist campaign and has built perhaps the youngest core of supporters. She has also won union support and is a much more formidable campaigner than the Ashton of 2012.

She could surprise. If she is the first to drop off the ballot, however, her backers are expected to split three ways.

It really is hard to predict who will win. But Harper is also spot on in his analysis of how far the party has fallen:

It needs to find that relevancy in Quebec again and this is a tough road for any of the four, not just the turbaned Singh.

The party sold 124,000 memberships during this race, but a mere 4,907 of them were sold in Quebec, about half the total sold during the 2012 race.

It allowed itself to be outmanoeuvred by Trudeau on traditional left-of-centre issues and has largely been rudderless for 16 months.

However, some of the shine has worn off Justin. There is an opportunity for the NDP -- if they choose the right leader. 


Sunday, September 17, 2017

Some Small Progress

There are some who view last week's deal between Donald Trump and the Democrats as a new day in Washington. Frank Rich cautions his readers to contain their enthusiasm:

This instance of victory for congressional Democrats was a one-off. The new coinage that Trump is somehow an “independent,” with its implicit invocation of the Teddy Roosevelts of American history, is a way of dignifying and normalizing erratic behavior that hasn’t changed from the start. It’s the latest iteration of those previous moments when wishful centrist pundits started saying things like “Today Trump became president” simply because he stuck to a teleprompter script when addressing Congress or bombed Syria. Trump is an “independent” in the same way a toddler is. He jumped at the Democrats’ deal solely on impulse. He remains a drama queen who likes to grab attention any way he can, especially when he thinks he can please a crowd, whether the mobs at his rallies or the press Establishment he claims to loathe but whose approval he has always desperately craved. The most telling aspect of this whole incident was his morning-after phone call to Schumer to express his excitement that he was getting rave reviews not only from Fox but CNN and MSNBC as well.

In the end, the deal didn't achieve much:

The deal’s sole accomplishments were to (temporarily) prevent the government from defaulting or shutting down and make a first installment on Hurricane Harvey relief. That this can be greeted by anyone as any kind of breakthrough in governance shows just how low the bar has become for achievement by this Congress and this White House.

The Democrats should be wary of collaborating with Trump. Republican collaboration has not been good for the party and history will not view their support of Trump favourably:

It didn’t turn out well for the Vichy collaborators in World War II, and the same fate in one way or another will befall those Republican leaders who abandoned whatever principles they had once Trump occupied their party. History will be merciless to them, but how much fun to watch them reduced to thunderstruck supernumeraries in real time.

Some small progress was made last week. But there is no reason to rejoice.

Image: Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Saturday, September 16, 2017

The Golden Mean Has Disappeared

Rather than practising the fine art of political compromise, Lawrence Martin writes, Americans are heading to the extremes:

It was thought that Mr. Sanders was boneyard-bound politically after his primaries' insurgency was snuffed out by Hillary Clinton. It was thought Mr. Bannon's banishment from Donald Trump's inner sanctum might spell the end of his remarkable Svengali-like turn on the Republican stage.
But the two men are still defining or, if you will, redefining U.S. politics. As in: far right, far left, goodbye middle.

The rhetoric on both sides gets shriller as both parties are hollowed out:

Mr. Bannon, who views most traditional Republicans with "contempt, total and complete contempt," vowed to fight in nomination battles to take down entrenched party members who don't adhere to Mr. Trump's wall-building nationalist, populist pitch.

By training their sights on their own Republican flock, Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon could shatter the party enough to help the Democrats roar back to power. The Trump/Bannon nativist preachings – that the country went to hell in a hand basket because of such things as rotten trade agreements – increasingly has the look of sophistry.

The argument is that the low 4.4-per-cent unemployment rate doesn't reflect the misery of a citizenry who haven't shared in the economic upturn of recent years. But a U.S. Census Bureau report this week said in fact the recovery was distributing benefits more broadly, that the median household income jumped 3.2 per cent after inflation last year, that poverty numbers are declining. Meanwhile, interest rates are low, inflation is low and the stock market is high.

Meanwhile, Sanders is driving wedges into his own party: 

While the Sanders ideal of universal coverage is laudable, it poses many risks for the party. Many Democrats fear it will hurt them in swing states in the midterm elections. For Republicans, the call for socialized medicine is music to the ears. One of the few things they still agree on is the need for tax cuts; the Sanders plan would hike the tax burden significantly.

The Republicans, with Senator Lindsey Graham heading the effort, are making a last-ditch attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare. They can now use the Sanders socialized-medicine plank as a weapon. If we don't act on Obamacare, they can argue, look what happens next. You'll feel the Bern. The socialist's tax burn.

The Greeks preached the concept of the golden mean. As time went on, they found it increasingly hard to practise it. The same phenomenon seems to be happening in the United States. 

Image: slideplayer

Friday, September 15, 2017

Sparking Revolution

It costs money for any world leader to go anywhere. But, Michael Harris writes, because ordinary people are footing the bill, those leaders should ride herd on travel costs. Consider some of those costs:

The King of Personal Pork is undoubtedly President Donald Trump. In just 100 days in office, he has gouged U.S. taxpayers out of $100 million for his travel, including those frequent weekend junkets to his Mar-a-Lago resort — free airfare, free security, and, of course, free advertising for his businesses.
President Obama’s travel bill, by way of comparison, was $97 million … over eight years.

In 2012, taxpayers shelled out $1.2 million to ship two armoured Cadillacs and a bulletproof SUV to India for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to that country. The Indian government offered a few limos of its own for the historic occasion; apparently they didn’t meet Steve’s high standards.
So Harper ordered a Canadian Forces C-17 to fly in his own wheels on this 22,000-kilometre round-trip — maybe the most expensive taxi ride in history. (I’m assuming the cargo plane was too small to also accommodate Harper’s ego, which travelled by Challenger jet.) When the heat came down for this ludicrous extravagance, Harper did what he always did when he found himself in a corner. He blamed someone else — in this case, the RCMP.

And that brings Harris to Justin Trudeau and his Christmas vacation in the Bahamas:

It was reported last May that the prime minister’s holiday excursion to Bell Island in the Bahamas — where he, his family, a nanny and a few colleagues were guests of a billionaire — cost taxpayers $127,000.

Thanks to the excellent reporting of the CBC’s Elizabeth Thompson, we now know the true cost of the PM’s sleepover with the Aga Khan (who, by the way, also lobbies the government of Canada): not $127,000, but $215,398.

The lesson is pretty straightforward. Those who claim to be champions of the middle class should not act like royalty. That kind of behaviour sparks revolution.

Image: wallpapersxl.com

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Mr Positive?

When Andrew Scheer was elected leader of the Conservative Party, he promised that he would promote a "positive message." Andrew Coyne writes that, so far, he hasn't been very positive:

As Parliament resumes, we’ve yet to see much of that vaunted positivity from Scheer. He has let it be known his party will be focused on three things in the fall sitting: the settlement of Omar Khadr’s lawsuit against the government, at a cost of $10.5 million; the recent influx of asylum-seekers from the United States, primarily in Quebec; and proposed changes to the taxation of private corporations, the subject of so much recent vitriol.

On each of these issues, Scheer is howling in pure Conservative boilerplate:

It is the easiest thing in the world to oppose the Khadr payment — polls show it is wildly unpopular — but is that really the most crucial issue facing the nation, two months later? And can the Conservatives say with any certainty that fighting the case to the bitter end would have saved any money?

The asylum-seeker issue, likewise, appears already to be fading: the rate of inflow has fallen from nearly 300 a day to fewer than 100. And while it’s certainly possible it could flare again, we have yet to hear a plausible solution from the opposition.

As for the tax ruckus, there are any number of valid conservative critiques that could be offered: the government’s proposals are too complex, too intrusive, too costly and so on.
If the party were feeling extra adventurous, it might even offer, you know, positive alternatives: perhaps reducing the incentive to incorporate, by closing the gap between the small business rate and the top personal rate, or a more broad-based reform of the tax system that would address a number of distortions and inequities at one go, rather than picking just one.

The faces change. But they offer the same regurgitated policies. That's not positive.

Image: The National Post

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Capitalism and Climate Change

In today's Guardian,  George Monbiot writes that capitalism -- and, most particularly, neo-liberal capitalism -- cannot solve the problem of climate change. It can only exacerbate it:

As Milton Friedman, one of the architects of neoliberal ideology, put it: “Ecological values can find their natural space in the market, like any other consumer demand.” As long as environmental goods are correctly priced, neither planning nor regulation is required. Any attempt by governments or citizens to change the likely course of events is unwarranted and misguided. But there’s a flaw. Hurricanes do not respond to market signals. The plastic fibres in our oceans, food and drinking water do not respond to market signals. Nor does the collapse of insect populations, or coral reefs, or the extirpation of orangutans from Borneo.

Friedman popularized the theory that the invisible hand of the market solved all human problems. All we need do is to put an appropriate price on a problem, and it will go away. But there are some things you can't price. Some things -- like human life, species and ecosystems . . . cannot be redeemed for money."

Friedman also popularized the idea that market solutions encouraged predictability. But the Greeks knew what Friedman didn't -- that much of life is unpredictable:

Environmental collapse does not progress by neat increments. You can estimate the money you might make from building an airport: this is likely to be linear and fairly predictable. But you cannot reasonably estimate the environmental cost the airport might incur. Climate breakdown will behave like a tectonic plate in an earthquake zone: periods of comparative stasis followed by sudden jolts. Any attempt to compare economic benefit with economic cost in such cases is an exercise in false precision.

We've been living in Friedman's world for the past fifty years. We are now reaping the results.

Image: You Tube

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

This Is The Moment

The news coming from North America over the last two weeks has been increasingly dark. Mother Nature is not happy. Bill McKibben writes:

That one long screed of news from one continent in one week (which could be written about many other continents and many other weeks – just check out the recent flooding in south Asia for instance) is a precise, pixelated portrait of a heating world. Because we have burned so much oil and gas and coal, we have put huge clouds of CO2 and methane in the air; because the structure of those molecules traps heat the planet has warmed; because the planet has warmed we can get heavier rainfalls, stronger winds, drier forests and fields. It’s not mysterious, not in any way. It’s not a run of bad luck. It’s not Donald Trump (though he’s obviously not helping). It’s not hellfire sent to punish us. It’s physics.

People have been ignoring the physics of climate change the way they used to ignore the link between smoking and cancer. But now:

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are the equivalent of one of those transient ischaemic attacks – yeah, your face is drooping oddly on the left, but you can continue. Maybe. If you start taking your pills, eating right, exercising, getting your act together.

That’s the stage we’re at now – not the warning on the side of the pack, but the hacking cough that brings up blood. But what happens if you keep smoking? You get worse, till past a certain point you’re not continuing. We’ve increased the temperature of the Earth a little more than 1C so far, which has been enough extra heat to account for the horrors we’re currently witnessing. And with the momentum built into the system, we’re going to go somewhere near 2C, no matter what we do. That will be considerably worse than where we are now, but maybe it will be expensively endurable.
The problem is, our current business-as-usual trajectory takes us to a world that’s about 3.5C warmer. That is to say, even if we kept the promises we made at Paris (which Trump has already, of course, repudiated) we’re going to build a planet so hot that we can’t have civilisations.

In other words, this is the moment when we either do something to halt climate change  -- or we perish.

Image: BBC.com

Monday, September 11, 2017

Drowning In Ignorance

Just before Hurricane Irma slammed into Florida, Rush Limbaugh raged at climate scientists. Paul Krugman writes:

On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh accused weather scientists of inventing Irma’s threat for political and financial reasons: “There is a desire to advance this climate change agenda, and hurricanes are one of the fastest and best ways to do it,” he declared, adding that “fear and panic” help sell batteries, bottled water, and TV advertising.

Then Limbaugh fled his Palm Beach castle. Even as Harvey and Irma tear up the Gulf Coast, conservatives refuse to talk about climate change:

For example, Scott Pruitt, the pollution- and polluter-friendly head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says that now is not the time to bring up the subject — that doing so is “insensitive” to the people of Florida. Needless to say, for people like Pruitt there will never be a good time to talk about climate.

Denying science while attacking scientists as politically motivated and venal is standard operating procedure on the American right. When Donald Trump declared climate change a “hoax,” he was just being an ordinary Republican.

And thanks to Trump’s electoral victory, know-nothing, anti-science conservatives are now running the U.S. government. When you read news analyses claiming that Trump’s deal with Democrats to keep the government running for a few months has somehow made him a moderate independent, remember that’s it not just Pruitt: Almost every senior figure in the Trump administration dealing with the environment or energy is both an establishment Republican and a denier of climate change and of scientific evidence in general.

They are a party and a government of the willfully ignorant. They would rather drown in their ignorance than face the future.

Image: CNN Money

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Terminal Decline

The ravages of Neo-liberalism are everywhere. Will Hutton writes that neo-liberal prescriptions have left Britain in permanent decline. A recent report from the Institute for Public Policy suggests that recent history is a tale of underachievement:

a woeful track record on R&D; overemphasis on high, short-term profits; an incredibly poor record on productivity and stagnating real wages. On almost every international comparison, Britain fares badly, with a desperately weak export sector overfocused on financial services and a few manufacturing industries.

Many aspects – the structure of our companies, the priorities of finance, the skills of our workforce, the creaking infrastructure, the weakness of the tax base – need to be addressed because the failures are interlinked. We have an economic muddle rather than an economic model, declares the IPPR commission.

Yet, despite clear evidence of failure, there appears to be little political will to change things:

There hasn’t been a reframing of the way capitalist institutions work since the 1930s and 40s. The change in the 1970s was a shift to the right, still firmly in control of the national narrative, and now running the rightwing coup that is Brexit.

We are tempted by the easy option of understanding failure and decline on this scale in terms of individual moral failings for which we are being punished. The benefit cheats in the flats opposite or the migrants allowed to crowd in a safe house, snapping up jobs on zero-hour contracts. Then there’s soft liberalism with its pernicious indulgent views.
Powerful rightwing newspapers that foreground the same stories about welfare cheats and immigration while relentlessly attacking liberal institutions – the BBC, the NHS, the EU – reinforce these reflex reactions. They would never endorse or champion the IPPR’s powerful analysis. And the written word, even from a tawdry biased media, retains disproportionate cultural force.

Too few figures at the top of our society speak out either in defence of Enlightenment values or at the evident crisis before their eyes. They fear being struck off the lists for non-executive directorships and public appointments by making criticisms that could help the dread forces of Labourism. Not to mention lost invitations to the ritziest of parties.

It's a familiar story. What has happened in Britain has happened in Canada and the United States. Hutton suggests that things will only change if they get catastrophic. And Britain is flirting with catastrophe:

The right is managing a cockup of such epic proportions that some in the Tory elite are beginning to dissociate themselves from a brand that is becoming as toxic and emblematic of failure as the Romanovs and Hapsburgs. Tory newspapers are so biased that their influence is slipping.

The United States is in the same disarray. In Canada, things are not quite so desperate. But the direction is the same.

Image: openDemocracy

Saturday, September 09, 2017

An Insurrection Like No Other

Political insurrections are common occurrences. Lawrence Martin writes that, in Canada, we've had plenty:

John Diefenbaker's Tory leadership occasioned a venomous party revolt, as did Joe Clark's. Brian Mulroney's Tories won a smashing victory in 1984 and another majority in 1988, but that wasn't good enough: With his Reform Party, Preston Manning led a populist rebellion that effectively killed off the federal Progressive Conservative Party, reducing it to two seats.

There followed on the Liberal Party side the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin wars. Mr. Chrétien won two majorities, whereupon the insurrection of Martin rebels began. He won a third, only to see his antagonists gather in greater numbers and force him out. There's a book coming out on Mr. Chrétien next month by Bob Plamondon called The Shawinigan Fox. It has revelations, which I've read, about the feud. Warning to the Martin crowd: Duck!

But what is happening in the United States is different. The insurrection starts at the top and is moving down through the Republican Party:

Mr. Trump's fiscal deal with Democrats – a short-term fix – to increase the debt limit undercut his party. The Democratic plan had been turned down by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steven Munchin, wanted a different, longer-term pact but was cut off by Mr. Trump at a meeting in which the President sided with Democratic leaders in the room. "Shell-shocked" was the term making the rounds to describe the GOP reaction.

Earlier in the week, Mr. Trump put his party in a bind with his withdrawal of support for legislation protecting young immigrants. He gave his party a short time frame to find a compromise. Before that, he enraged many fellow Republicans with his commentary on Charlottesville. He attacked his party brethren for failing to rid the country of Obamacare, even though he deserved much of the blame. His hardline take on trade and protectionism is opposed. He's in a feud with the party over funding for the border wall with Mexico.

What is happening has a lot to do with the shambles that is Donald Trump. But its roots are to be found in a party which has consistently catered to the rich. Trump is a rich man who works for men like him. Rich men are accustomed to getting their way -- no matter the cost.

The cost is now painfully evident.

Friday, September 08, 2017

Taking Away Tax Breaks

There has been a lot of sound and fury recently about something called the Canadian-controlled private corporation: Tom Walkom explains:

It’s a form of corporate organization used extensively, but not exclusively, by small business. More to the point, it gives the owners significant tax advantages that most Canadians don’t enjoy.

More than that: 

Independent research by tax experts such as the University of Ottawa’s Michael Wolfson show that the use of these private corporations has skyrocketed in recent years.

In one study published by the Canadian Tax Journal, Wolfson and others calculated that the tax advantages associated with private corporations disproportionally favour the top one per cent of income earners.

The Liberals' plan to scuttle the tax break has caused a firestorm:

Small-business lobbies such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have reacted furiously to Morneau’s proposal. Farmers are nervous. Liberal MPs are being bearded in their ridings.

The Canadian Medical Association, many of whose physician members have formed private corporations specifically to take advantage of the tax loopholes Morneau wants to close, have levelled volleys at his scheme.

In an attempt to appeal to the prime minister’s avowed feminism, the CMA has even played the gender card, noting that the tax breaks the government wants to end allow female physicians to fund maternity leave benefits they would not otherwise enjoy.

No one mentions that "like all other self-employed individuals, physicians who choose to pay employment insurance premiums are eligible to receive up to 50 weeks of maternity and parental benefits from the government."

Canadians will sing  the praises of a government which gives them a new tax break. But woe betide the government which takes a tax break away.

Image: thenewdaily.com.au

Thursday, September 07, 2017

The Hollow President

E. J. Dionne has Donald Trump's number. He writes in The Washington Post:

One of the most cynical quotations in history is also one of the most widely attributed. Let’s ponder the version associated with Groucho Marx: “Sincerity is the key to success. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

From the moment Donald Trump opened his quest for the presidency, this idea has defined him and served as an organizing principle of his politics.

It should be clear by now that Trump is an orange mass of insecurities, always worried about how his show is playing:

Everything that comes out of his mouth or appears on his Twitter feed is calculated for its political and dramatic effect. Trump is the exact opposite of what he tries to project: The thing he cares about is what others think of him. So he’ll adjust his views again and again to serve his ends as circumstances change. He’s not Mr. Fearless. He’s Mr. Insecure.

This is the most straightforward explanation for the fiasco created by the president’s mean-spirited decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. Trump was trying to square incompatible desires: to look super tough on immigrants to his dwindling band of loyal supporters, and to live up to his expressions of “love” (you have to wonder why Trump throws this word around so much) for the 800,000 residents who were brought to the United States illegally as children, conduct productive lives and are as “American” as any of the rest of us.

And then, when the bad reviews poured in, Trump backed away from even his muddle of a policy. He tweeted that if Congress didn’t act, “I will revisit this issue!” So a six-month delay might not really be a six-month delay. It might be extended. Or maybe not. Who knows? Adding an exclamation point to your waffling doesn’t help.

The man lacks an inner core. His persona changes with his ratings. He's the a product of reality television. He's the hollow president.

Image: onsizzle.com

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

An Economic Ignoramus

Paul Krugman wrote yesterday that Donald Trump's decision to kill DACA was a "moral obscenity." But, on simple economic grounds, it's stupid:

First note that whatever you think about the economics of less-educated immigrants — most of the evidence suggests that they don’t depress wages, but that’s another discussion — none of it applies to DREAMers. Their educational and behavioral profile, as Cato notes, doesn’t resemble the average immigrant, let alone the average undocumented immigrant; they look like H-1B visa holders, that is, skilled immigrants we have specifically allowed in because they help the economy.

Beyond that, DREAMers are young — which means that they help the economy in not one but two big ways, because they mitigate the economic problems caused by an aging population.
One of those problems is fiscal: as the population ages, there are fewer working-age members contributing taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare. A cohort of relatively high-wage, highly motivated people mostly in their 20s, likely to pay lots of taxes for decades, is exactly what the doctor ordered to make that issue less severe.

Beyond that, sending dreamers home will cause "a sharp slowdown in the growth of the working-age population, which means less incentive to invest in structures, factories, and more. (The demographic issue is why Japan, with low fertility and great hostility to immigration, entered a zero-rate regime a decade before the rest of us.) 

Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth, he says something stupid. But his actions prove that this supposedly smart business man is an economic ignoramus.

Image: justplainpolitics.com

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Not Getting All Shook Up

Donald Trump keeps threatening to tear up NAFTA. Tom Walkom writes that there's no need to panic. In fact, Trump may be doing us a favour:

We know that Canada and the U.S. are already at daggers drawn over a provision in the current deal that gives each member state a limited right to challenge one another’s trade practices before an independent tribunal.

Trump wants the provision scrapped altogether while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he won’t sign a deal without it.

The two countries also disagree vigorously over U.S. Buy America policies as well as Trump’s insistence that manufactured goods sold in the U.S. contain a specific amount of U.S. content.

Mexico’s government, which also is at loggerheads with Trump, is already working on alternative plans for trade diversification should the NAFTA talks fail. Trudeau would be wise to do the same.

The recent spike in gas prices has reminded Canadians just how closely the Canadian economy is linked to the American economy. When things get rough in Houston, the bad news is felt in Napanee. It would be wise to diversify:

Indeed, some diversification has already begun. The recently negotiated trade deal between Canada and the European Union, while fatally flawed in its details, is at least the right idea. So is the long-simmering but never-acted-upon plan to negotiate a trade agreement with Japan.

Canada has already signed a foreign investment pact with China and started work on a comprehensive trade deal. The foreign investment pact is lopsided in China’s favour. With luck, Ottawa will do better on any trade deal.

And, truth be told, we didn't do so badly before we put so many of our eggs in the NAFTA basket:

Canada traded quite handily with the U.S. before signing a formal free trade agreement with that country. It could do so again.

A recent study done for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives points out that even without NAFTA or its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989, most Canadian exports to the U.S. would face either zero or moderate tariffs.

There are other nations eager to buy the goods and services Canada produces. Canadian governments have tried before to make the country’s economy less reliant on the U.S. Pierre Trudeau’ so-called Third Option, including his brief dalliance with economic nationalism, was an expression of this idea.

Trump takes pleasuring in rattling those he perceives as his enemies -- and he sees everyone as his enemy. We shouldn't get all shook up.

Image: newsblaze.com


Monday, September 04, 2017

North Korea's Nukes

Over the weekend, North Korea claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb. The test, Michael Harris writes, brought universal condemnation:

Britain’s foreign minister, Boris Johnson, slammed Kim Jong-un for his “reckless” action.

India “deplored” the nuclear test, which it claimed had “gone against the objective of the de-nuclearlization of the Korean Peninsula.”

French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the North Korean test with what he described as “the utmost vigour,” a lawless act that the UN Security Council should deal with expeditiously. He forgets that when France was blowing up paradise in the South Pacific with its nuclear tests, Charles de Gaulle had this to say by way of justification: “We are compelled to acquire the most powerful weapons of the age.”

And therein lies the problem. The nations condemning North Korea already possess nuclear weapons.  They have no intention of giving them up. And there are recent lessons about what happens to countries that do give up their nukes:

Compare that [Kim's nuclear program] to the route chosen by Col. Muammar Gaddafi — to give up his weapons of mass destruction program to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein. Instead, Gaddafi’s regime crumbled, and he ended up on the wrong end of a bayonet. Kim was 19 years old when that happened but I’m betting he remembers it like yesterday.

The reason Kim is pursuing nuclear weapons is that he has seen that they are the ultimate sanctuary for anyone who possesses them. India, Pakistan, and Israel all obtained nuclear weapons despite the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which came into force in 190 nations in 1970. Those countries have faced no consequences for that.  Instead, they took their place in the hierarchy of powerful nations of the world not to be trifled with.

 So far, that insight seems to have alluded our present generation of Western leaders.

Image: wnep.com

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Look At The Connections

For the moment, Hurricane Harvey has taken the focus off Donald's Trump's connections with Russia. Ruth Marcus writes that it's important to keep your eyes on Trump's Russian business partners:

While he ran for president, Trump was simultaneously — and secretly — pursuing financial opportunities with a foreign adversary. Not just any adversary, but Russia, a country described by his party’s previous presidential nominee as the United States’ “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” And not just pursuing financial opportunities in Russia, but actively seeking the help of at least one senior Russian official to gain government approval for the project.

Once again: This is not okay. When you run for president, you cannot — you should not — put yourself in the position of using that candidacy as a door-opening business opportunity. You cannot — even if the prospect of winning seems remote — put yourself in a position of being financially beholden to a hostile foreign power.

Trump Tower Moscow was not another instance of Trump as unabashed cross-promoter-in-chief, like using the campaign press corps to help tout the reopening of his Scottish golf course. It represented something much more disturbing, even unpatriotic.

And recall what Trump said during the campaign about his Russian connections:

“For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia,” he tweeted in July 2016. This past January, as Trump prepared to take office, he reiterated, “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” Shades of Bill Clinton — it depends on what the meaning of “have” is.  

And, after he assumed office, Trump still maintained he had no important ties to Russia:

As recently as his interview this summer with the New York Times, Trump disingenuously played down his financial interests in Russia. “I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? . . . They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one.” Including the one he was pursuing while running for president, but failed to mention.

The connections are there. They've been there for a long time. Hurricane Harvey is an opportunity for Trump to change the channel. Wise observers should not follow his lead.

Image: createdebate.com

Saturday, September 02, 2017

It Pays To Have A Plan

Hurricane Harvey has laid bare the truth about Houston. Doug Saunders writes:

It is one of the most racially segregated cities in the United States: Its north, east and south are at least 90 per cent non-white, while its centre and west are mostly white. These non-white neighbourhoods are home to 81 per cent of the city's open drainage ditches, 78 per cent of closed landfills, 84 per cent of carcinogen emitters and 88 per cent of hazardous waste sites, as well as 94 per cent of its worst schools. In January, the federal department of Housing and Urban Development found Houston in violation of the Civil Rights Act for its discriminatory housing policies.

It is America's most economically segregated city, with chasms of asphalt between the upwardly mobile and the 600,000 undocumented residents making $20 (U.S.) a day. And its sprawl and isolation prevent Houston from building efficient mass-transportation and energy solutions, making it one of the least ecological cities – a problem that, if not fixed, will contribute to a rise in the size and intensity of future hurricanes.
Houston's underlying problem, as with Hurricane Harvey's underlying problem, is its lack of a plan. It is an unplanned, randomly sprawling city whose oceans of asphalt have exposed it to the worst ravages of nature and the worst human responses. It needs to be built back better.

Time will tell if the city will be built back better. But, to do that, there has to be a plan. And, up until now, Houston -- like much of the United States -- has been fighting against developing a plan. The red flags signalling the dangers of climate change should be flying in the United States and around the world. 

To date, they're hard to find.

Image: Houston Chronicle

Friday, September 01, 2017

It Won't Be Long

Houstonians are wading in waist deep water.  Chemical plants are exploding. Devastation is the order of the day. Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan write:

Houston, the Petro Metro, is home to one-quarter of the petroleum refining capacity in the United States. Include the entire Gulf Coast, and the percentage increases to half. In the midst of this massive storm, sprawling petrochemical facilities were forced to shut down abruptly, ejecting millions of pounds of toxins into the air, impacting most heavily the poorer communities of color near where these plants have historically been built.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, peddler of the lie that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to hurt the U.S. economy, made a predictably superficial visit to Texas. “What a crowd, what a turnout,” Trump boasted as he landed in Corpus Christi. He made no mention of the victims.

Climate denial in the face of Harvey’s devastation is incomprehensible, ignorant and immoral.

Harvey has sent a message which can't be ignored. NASA scientist James Hansen says it should be as obvious as the noses on our faces:

“With the beginning of changes in atmospheric composition, caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, the planet is getting warmer, and sea level has begun to go up, because the ocean is getting warmer and because ice is melting.” He continued: “The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing because the atmosphere is getting warmer, and therefore the amount of water being dumped during these storms is larger because of human-made global warming. Thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical storms all get their energy from the latent energy of water vapor. There are substantial human-made effects on these storms.” Larger storm surges. More rain. Stronger storms.

Most tragically, the victims are primarily poor and people of colour. Those in power have no idea how these people live -- and they have no desire to find out how they live. It won't be long before more than chemical plants explode.

Image: USA Today

Thursday, August 31, 2017

No Orange Crush

Quebec politics have always been mercurial. What has applied for a decade can be reversed in the next decade. And so it is that, in la belle province, the NDP fortress has crumbled. Chantal Hebert writes:

The enthusiasm that attended the 2011 orange wave has given way to widespread voter indifference as well as internal discomfort within the province’s depleted NDP ranks.

None of the four candidates has emerged as a panacea for the party’s post-election blues. Many of the province’s New Democrats see little light at the end of the leadership tunnel.

A Léger Marketing poll published this weekend by Le Devoir, the Gazette and the Globe and Mail found 80 per cent of respondents unable or unwilling to state a preference for any of the contenders for Thomas Mulcair’s job.

At the moment, all indications are that Jagmeet Singh will win the leadership. In Montreal his victory might be cheered. But, in the hinterland, euphoria would probably be hard to find:

It is increasingly common in the dying days of this campaign to hear some Quebec New Democrats warn that under a turban-wearing Sikh leader, the party will hit a wall in the province.

On Sunday in Montreal, Singh asked the audience attending the campaign’s only French-language debate to look beyond his turban and beard. But the fact is, his identity is a major, and in some instances, the main attraction for many of his supporters.

It is not primarily the ideas and the policies he has put forward in this campaign that have some party members dreaming of a big NDP breakthrough in the more multicultural quarters of Canada.

Quebecers are not the only ones who could be repelled by a Singh victory. But, more importantly, he is no native son -- as was the case with Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair. 

Guy Caron can make that claim. However, "of the 124,000 members eligible to vote for the next leader, fewer than 5,000, making up a measly 4 per cent of the total, are from Quebec. When the party selected Mulcair to succeed Jack Layton, it had almost three times as many Quebec members."

What it all means is that, in the next election, there will be no Orange Crush.

Image: Pinterest

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Do They Still Exist?

Masha Gessen writes that Vladimir Putin encourages vigilante justice:

Turn on Russian television any day of the week and you are certain to stumble upon a show in which a group of people who appear to be regular citizens (that is, they have no uniforms or government-issued documents) stage a raid of one sort or another. They barge into a store or a restaurant, for example, and demand to see employees’ identity documents, the storage area, or the cooking facilities. Without fail, they find violations of laws or regulations: the staff, natives of Central Asia, don’t have work permits! The store stocks vodka bottles with no alcohol-tax stamps affixed to them! The cook doesn’t cover her hair! At the end of the show, the raiders often pass their tearful, terrified victims to uniformed law enforcement officers, who sometimes appear less than enthusiastic about the task being handed to them.
These raiders have no official titles or legal powers. What directs their actions are the militant rhetoric and the promise of broad impunity that emanate from the Kremlin—and, of course, the glory and recognition of being on television.
Putin did not invent vigilantes, of course: autocrats frequently rely on delegating violence to extralegal actors or, as in the case of Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, on the willingness of law enforcement officers to carry out extralegal violence in exchange for the promise of impunity. Duterte has made this promise explicit; more often, incitement to violence contains a tacit guarantee of protection.

Donald Trump has copied Putin's rough justice:

Over the last two weeks, we have seen Donald Trump send out both kinds of signals to the vigilantes of his own choosing. His refusal to condemn the violent marchers in Charlottesville, in pointed and repeated break with political convention, was rightly interpreted by the white supremacists as a signal of encouragement. And his pardoning of former sheriff Joe Arpaio—before he was even sentenced—protected a law enforcement officer from facing any consequences for a long history of brutal violations of constitutional rights. Trump had encouraged extralegal violence in the past—like when he called on police not to be “too nice” to suspects. But the two weeks bracketed by the violence in Charlottesville and the pardon of Arpaio herald a definite turn away from the institutions of a government he despises.

In Russia, there are no institutions to rein Putin in. In the United States, those institutions used to exist. The question Americans -- and the rest of the world -- faces is: Do those institutions still exist?

Image: Slate.com

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

The Evil That Men Do

That wind is blowing up from the South. Ontario's elementary teachers want to remove John A. Macdonald's name from public schools in the province. The issue is Macdonald's treatment of native peoples -- more particularly the role he played in setting up the residential school system. Tom Walkom writes that, if Macdonald's name is erased from public institutions, the names of several prime ministers will also have to be expunged:

Wilfrid Laurier, the Liberal prime minister whose government famously urged Eastern European “men in sheepskin coats” to settle the West, was in the broadest sense pro-immigration. But he also did his best to keep the Chinese out of Canada.

William Lyon Mackenzie King, the long-serving prime minister who steered Canada through the Second World War was, in the mid-1930s, a secret fan of Adolph Hitler’s labour relations policies.

Under King, Canada was extremely reluctant to take in Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler.
J.S. Woodsworth, the first leader of what is now the New Democratic Party, was a fierce advocate of workers’ rights. But his 1909 book on immigration, Strangers Within our Gates, uses race-based language that would get him expelled from today’s NDP.

Robert Borden is generally regarded as a nation-builder who steered Canada through the First World War and into international prominence. But he can also be seen as a nation-buster, whose decision to introduce conscription fanned animosity between English and French Canada.

Even modern politicians are complicated. Pierre Trudeau was at one level a civil libertarian whose efforts led to Canada’s constitutionally entrenched charter of rights and freedoms.
Yet he was also the man who, during the FLQ crisis of 1970, casually suspended civil rights, a move that led to the arrest without charge of almost 500 innocent people.

The problem is -- and it has always been -- that  public figures are deeply flawed. If we are to remember them, they must be remembered warts and all. Given the standard which is being set here and to the south, very few people would pass muster with succeeding generations. Marc Antony was right: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

Remembering what we did wrong is no excuse for not recalling what we did right. That rule applies to all of us -- public figures and the least among us.

Image: Pinterest

Monday, August 28, 2017

That Kind Of Contempt Can Get Expensive

Last week, Mike Duffy launched a lawsuit against The Senate and the Attorney General. No one should be surprised. Michael Harris writes:

Who could seriously argue that both the political system and the justice department failed Duffy in spectacular fashion given what came out at his criminal trial? On April 21, 2016, the senator was acquitted on every single one of the 31 criminal charges against him. The judge laid the blame for this whole charade at the door of the Harper PMO, which he concluded was doing damage control for its own purposes. Duffy was the scapegoat, a mere diversionary sideshow.

Judge Charles Vaillancourt asked, “Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as if they were mere pawns on a chess board?” Vaillancourt answered his own question with an emphatic “yes.”

 Given what has happened since the trial, Duffy's suit was inevitable:

After his acquittal, Duffy tried to resolve matters of lost salary and legal fees with the Red Chamber. On December 12, 2016 he wrote to the Senate asking for reimbursement of his salary, living allowances, and pension accruals.

To date, he hasn’t even been given the courtesy of a response.

The Conservatives still control the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (CIBA). Despite being acquitted after a brutal criminal trial, despite a finding that his expenses were permissible under the rules, the Senate is still treating Duffy as if he were guilty. The Conservative brain trust seems to believe it is possible to crucify the same person twice.

I have written several times that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their defeat. It's true that  Duffy is no abandoned child, left to the mercy of a callous society. Nonetheless, Vaillancourt's decision makes it clear that Duffy was wronged.

And Stephen Harper's senators believe -- like their bloated orange cousin to the south -- that they can ignore a judge's order. That kind of contempt can get very expensive.

Image: Duhaime.org

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Boiling Cauldrons of Contradiction

Donald Trump says he pardoned Joe Arpaio because of his long and distinguished government service. But Dara Lind writes that you don't have to dig too deep to find the real reason for the pardon:

Sheriff Arpaio played a key role in validating Donald Trump, whose candidacy was initially seen as a joke, as the champion of hardline immigration policies and the cultural anxieties that came alongside them. Trump’s first truly major campaign rally, in August 2015, was in Phoenix with Arpaio and some of the “Angel Moms” (mothers of people killed by unauthorized immigrants) he would continue to co-opt as a candidate and president. Arpaio formally endorsed Trump in January 2016 — before a single primary vote had been cast. He took a gamble, and he won.

So it makes sense that Trump, who has some apparent loyalty to people who supported him back when he was one of 17 Republican presidential candidates, would think warmly of Arpaio. But the endorsement isn’t really the basis of their simpatico. It’s just an acknowledgment of the political truth that Trump is engaging in exactly the same brand of politics that Arpaio pioneered a decade earlier. As politicians, they used tough-on-crime rhetoric and breaches of “political correctness” to give the impression of sticking up for law and order; as government executives, they exercised their power to the greatest possible extent, without a ton of attention paid to the rule of law.

Like Trump, Arpaio communicated toughness through big, theatrical stunts — raids conducted with armored vehicles, the pink underwear, the tent cities — that often happened to violate the rights of their targets. (The tent cities were ultimately shut down after being cited as violations of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”) His “law and order” policies weren’t successful as anti-crime measures (911 response times went up hugely during the heyday of Arpaio’s sweeps), but succeeded in terms of targeting and victimizing the intended people.  

Both men are oxymoronic soul brothers. They claim to stand for law and order while simultaneously having complete contempt for the law. Both men are boiling cauldrons of contradiction. One can only hope that they fall into their own pots.

Image: Critics At Large

Saturday, August 26, 2017

There's Now Only One Objective

Donald Trump's opponents are outraged -- as they should be. But Trump is the Master of Distraction. One outrage is rapidly followed by another. He constantly shifts the focus of his critics. Jonathan Freedland writes:

If Trump succeeds in moving past Charlottesville, it won’t only be thanks to an unavoidable process of attrition that has worn liberals down. I’m afraid Trump’s opponents made a tactical error. He wanted to change the subject to the question of Confederate statues – and they let him. Days after those violent clashes had seen an antiracist protester murdered, the national conversation centred not on that act of terrorism but on which historical figures should be remembered, and how.

Make no mistake, that’s an important argument. But it is inevitably a nuanced one that, as we have seen in Britain too, divides liberal opinion. Two people, equally fervent in their loathing of racism, might disagree on whether it’s better to remove a monument, or keep it as a reminder of a shaming past. And there will never be an easy consensus on where to draw the line. If owning slaves is the key criterion, should the statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson come down too?

Trump’s opponents have spent much of the past two weeks talking about Confederate generals and US history, when they should have maintained a laser focus on the key and shocking point: that an American president spoke with sympathy and admiration for neo-Nazis; that he put these fascists on a moral par with those who oppose them; and that he was more animated in condemning what he called the alt-left than he ever was in lambasting those who parroted the slogans of the KKK, who brandished the symbols of white supremacism and who chanted: “Jews will not replace us.”

I doubt that this is a conscious strategy on Trump's part. His brain is simply too chaotic to arrive at such a strategy on its own. But it's that chaotic brain which has enabled him to survive and to shift responsibility for his actions on to others.

Trump's latest outrage is issuing a pardon for Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The implications for the rule of law in the United States are ominous.

All of the outrages add up to one indisputable conclusion. Trump has no respect -- for the law, for history, for those he claims to represent. So now it is time to focus on one objective -- removing them from office.

Image: Newsweek

Friday, August 25, 2017

A Call For A Change In Direction

Earlier this week the UN rebuked the United States for recent displays of racism. Nserine Malick writes:

A UN committee charged with tackling racism has issued an “early warning” over conditions in the US and urged the Trump administration to “unequivocally and unconditionally” reject discrimination. The warning specifically refers to events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where the civil rights activist Heather Heyer was killed when a car crashed into a group of people protesting against a white nationalist rally. Such statements are usually issued by the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination (Cerd) over fears of ethnic or religious conflict. In the past decade, the committee has only issued six warnings. Those admonishments went to Burundi, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.

You may have the impression that the ugliness in Charlottesville is something new. But those familiar with the history of the United States know that what happened in Virginia is as old as the Republic itself. The problem is that economic inequality brings out the worst in people. It rips a country's culture asunder:

Civilisations are undone in many ways, not all of them obvious. We tend to think of decline along military or economic lines but it is actually a nation’s culture, particularly in terms of equality, that determines its civilisational credentials. America’s descent into what looks like a full on race crisis is graphically dragging it down the “development” scale. Reality is closing in on the country’s exceptionalist self-perception.

In difficult times, the rights of minorities always come under attack:

 It is no coincidence that the rights most easily dislodged and taken back – whether it is those of transgender members of the military or Muslim US citizens of certain origins – are those of minorities. Even in the United Kingdom, it is no coincidence that the first jubilant spasm after the Brexit vote was manifested in a rise in hate crime. It is no coincidence that making America great again, or taking back control, inevitably involves wanting to claw back whatever little space was ceded to diversity and equality. This reclamation lies at the very heart of the US and UK’s modern nation-building.

The Trump Administration is following a well trodden path. The UN simply pointed that out -- and called for a change in direction.

Image: Townhall.com

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Our Summer Of Discontent

We live in a time of multiple crises -- the dangers from climate change, economic inequality and revived racism are real. But E. J. Dionne argues that the most pressing question we face is: "Can liberal democracy survive?"

I’d argue that the challenge to liberal democracy is far and away the most consequential question facing the world. If liberal democracy does not survive and thrive, every other problem we face becomes much more difficult.

Liberal democracy is, in principle, a simple if also profound idea: a belief in governments created through free elections and universal suffrage; an independent judiciary; and guarantees of the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and press. Some of my more libertarian-leaning friends — and in our shared desire to defend liberal democracy, we are friends — would define it as excluding various forms of regulation and redistribution.

The trend towards libertarianism is partly responsible for the problems we face:

I’d agree with them that the right to private property is a characteristic of liberal societies but insist that there is also an important place for social insurance, government provision of various services (education and health care among them) and rules protecting workers, consumers and the environment. Indeed, the vast inequalities that capitalism can produce when unchecked typically undermine liberal democracy and are doing so now.

And authoritarianism is on the rise:

History is starting to scowl as once-solid democracies (Hungary, Poland and Turkey, along with many outside Europe) move in an autocratic direction. China, meanwhile, offers a path to development and growth that involves neither freedom nor democracy.

Even where liberal democracy has its strongest foundations, authoritarian brands of populism have gained ground by exploiting widespread discontent.

This is, indeed, our summer of discontent. The choices that spring from that discontent will make all the difference.

Image: Daily Mail

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

This Little Light Of Mine

David Suzuki writes that in dark times -- and these are dark times -- "we must shine brighter:"

Charlottesville was a tipping point, not so much because hatred and ignorance were on full display (that happens all too often), but because so many people stood up and spoke out against it, and against President Donald Trump's bizarre and misguided response.

The effects spilled into Canada, most notably with the implosion of the far-right (and misnamed) media outlet The Rebel. The online platform, born from the ashes of the failed Sun News network, is a good illustration of the intersection between racism, intolerance and anti-environmentalism. Rather than learning from Sun News' failure that racism and extremism are unpopular and anti-Canadian, Rebel founder Ezra Levant ramped up the bigoted and anti-environmental messaging, with commentators ranting against feminists, LGBTQ people, Muslims and Jews (Levant is Jewish), along with rejecting climate science and solutions to environmental problems!

Levant has been spewing his venom for years. But the good news is that -- rather than ignoring him -- people are taking him on in the full light of day:

The Rebel's Faith Goldy was at Charlottesville, sympathetically “reporting” on the band of mostly male white extremists. When a racist drove his car into a crowd of anti-Nazi protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Haley and seriously injuring others, it was too much for some of Levant's long-time supporters.

Rebel staff and commentators -- including a co-founder -- cut their ties. Norwegian Cruise Line cancelled a scheduled Rebel fundraising cruise, hundreds of advertisers pulled out and principled conservatives dissociated themselves. Trying to salvage the site's ragged reputation, Levant fired Goldy.

We are not immune from the same forces that have seized the White House. But we are also not powerless in their presence. There are times when our little lights can accomplish much good.

The National Post

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

What Comes Next

There is some disagreement about whether or not Mark Twain actually said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but often it rhymes." Be that as it may, Geoff Smith writes that these days, in the United States, you can hear the rhymes -- with the 1920's:

Americans in the era both celebrated and recoiled from the impact of cosmopolitan urban culture upon long-standing rural values. Nervous citizens also rued the corrosive effect upon tradition of what journalist Walter Lippmann termed the “acids of modernity” — the automobile, radio, “black” music and literature, and, of course, bootleg liquor — upon accepted social mores.

The U.S. certainly helped win the Great War against the Central Powers, but to judge from events in the following decade, the country was as anxious as it was excited about the novel developments. Despite flappers, bootleg gin, colourful gangsters, and a loosening of old rules, one is struck by the American postwar dynamic of “taking back” America from inferior races and minorities.

And, despite the roaring economy, all kinds of nasty things were coming up for air:

In its purging of socialists and other radicals, the Red Scare of 1919-20 sought to revitalize an older, Anglo-Saxon America, as did restrictive immigration laws in 1921 and 1924, which closed the gates to Asians and Southern and Eastern Europeans.

Race riots and a spike in lynchings in the South, meanwhile, warned blacks not to traverse Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan assumed national prominence, similarly disposed against anything new or strange. The Klan was a many-splintered thing — anti-Semitic in the Northeast, anti-black in the South, anti-Catholic in the Midwest, and anti-Asian on the West Coast.

Other developments, included the burgeoning of Fundamentalist Christianity and the famed “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tenn., which featured three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan defending the literal truth of Jonah and the Whale, bespoke fiery Fundamentalist defences of Protestant Christianity, the Calvinist faith of the Fathers against all forms of religious liberalism.

In Michigan, automobile mogul Henry Ford railed against “international Jewry,” which, he charged, had taken control of American banking and entertainment circles. Ford’s calumnies against Jews everywhere caught the eye of a hopeful German politician named Adolf Hitler. His subsequent testament of hate, Mein Kampf, lifted passages verbatim from Ford.

It all came crashing down in 1929. One wonders what comes next.

Image: tr20's.co.uk