Six Crises

I find that Five US Crises have led to immediate political and social change and sometimes for generations and one could do so as well.

1860-1 - the coming Civil War, which led to Lincoln being elected, Abolition and over 50 years of political dominance for the fledgling GOP.

1930-32 - the Great Depression, which led to a Democratic White House for 20 straight years and control of Congress for all but 8 years until 1980 and 1994 and the New Deal and the Great Society entitlements.

1973-1980 - The Great American Malaise, which led to the Reagan Revolution, the Gingrich Common Sense Revolution, Welfare Reform, the end of the Cold War and GOP control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and for all but 6 of the past 26 years.

2001 - 911, which led to midterm success for a "minority" president, the War on Terror and the long and costly Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2008 - the Financial Meltdown, which led to Obama. the doubling of the National Debt, the slowest economic recovery in history, Obamacare and the Tea Party movement.

2020 - the COVID Crisis...which will lead to...? We will soon find out whether Americans think the real crisis is that they are not safe enough or that they are not free enough. The only questions then will become who benefits from that choice and for how long. What's a little disturbing is that, if you include the Deep State phenomenon, which emerged in all its ugliness, tyranny, politicization and illegality with Trump's campaign and presidency (but also figured in the Benghazi, IRS and other scandals of the Obama admin.) as a Crisis, too, four out of seven of these Crises have occurred in the past 19 years alone. Unsettling, indeed.

The Most Boring Name in the World

The Confederation of Canada and Confederation Day - An Argument for a new Official Name for Canada and Canada's Day

The most imaginatively boring name in the World has to be the official name that our Government decided some time ago to give itself and thus ourselves for the Public and the World to know us by - "The Government of Canada". It is a truism first to point out that every civilized nation in the World could call itself,"The Government of..." just as they could call themselves "The State of" or the "Nation of" or "The Country of". And, of course, they do not. Think People's Republic (however misleading) or Republic or Democratic Republic or Kingdom or Duchy or Commonwealth. Our official name is worse than a cliche and a dull oner indeed as it can apply to all and is thus meaningless as a way to tell people about us.

The former style,"The Dominion of Canada", which used to be on all ads, official documents. postage stamps, coins, stationery and other official finery like embassy signs or UN place cards and of course was the name of our National Holiday, was first partially removed in the 1950's and, after some thirty years, finally completely expunged, Canada Day taking over in the late 50's and the bureaucratic name referred to above starting its reign by the 90's (with the ubiquitous little Canadian flag attendant).

Why did this happen? After all, the Dominion name referred to exactly what happened on July 1, 1867: an Act of Parliament called the British North American Act and now called the Canada or Constitution Act as of the repatriation of our founding document in 1982 made us a "Dominion". That is, we were granted Dominion status and thus were autonomous or self-governing in all fields save Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Supreme Court. We were still a Dominion when the latter fields were granted to us by the Statute of Westminster in 1932 and by the Supreme Court Act in 1949 only more so. The process was completed with the coming of the repatriation but we were still a "Dominion" through it all. What changed?

In a word, our supposedly newfound Bicultural sensitivity to "the French Fact". But perhaps, this is a too neat and an unfair statement. By the postwar, not just the French Canadian population, but many English and other Canadians found the reference to "Dominion" to be either or both offensive and irrelevant to the modern Canadian experience. It was thought by the fashionable to be an artifact of a British Imperial relationship that was increasingly unconnected to Canada's true destiny and geopolitical position after World War 2. This was emphasized by Britain's decline and America's rise as the Superpower of the West. Further, many believed it was a reminder of hardship and oppression done by Britain to not only French Canada but our Natives and thus "disrespectful" to them. (Certainly, little thought seems to have been given to the fact that this "dominion", however hard to swallow, was also a reference to the fact that our Head of State was and still is the British monarch)

However, as Senator Eugene Forsey, renowned Constitutional expert, pointed out, if that were true, than how was one of the Founding Nations of Canada, the English, also "respected" by eliminating the name altogether? Further, of course, there was no more sensate discussion of how to replace it except by the awkward and uncreative expedients of the name,"Canada Day" and "The Government of Canada". No one, in any of these battles and debates over nomenclature,  seems to have come forward with a fair, respectful and vivid alternative that would be both elegant and at the same time accurately instruct all, whether young children conscious for the first time of their country, new Canadians or foreigners and other states about what we really are and where we came from.

Also missing was an alternative that could both inspire and unify all Canadians and that could not possibly offend any type of Canadian and reinforce them as well. That alternative  is obviously close at hand. We should refer to ourselves as "The Confederation of Canada" and call our national holiday,"Confederation Day". After all, other than the granting of Dominion status by the UK, which is now a dead letter, the other thing that happened that day was that we became a confederation of former colonies of Britain, now styled as "provinces", set upon governing themselves with a central federal government.

 That latter fact is as vital and real today as it was then if not more. For example, thanks to the political, legal and even constitutional evolution of Canada, we are now more of a Confederation in practice as well as in name than ever. Our provinces are more politically independent and powerful in a true federalism than, say, American states. Even Quebec nationalists and Western malcontents can agree that the new name would be a pleasant, gentle and timely reminder that it is the peoples of the provinces that made Canada of their own free will not a monarch and that the Federal Government is the property of all Canadians not just some Ottawa bureaucrats.

How evocative and exciting and also beautiful and historical would be this title and name compared to the plain brown paper bag wrapping of "the government of" or "Canada". The US do not call their day, "USA" day. The French do not call theirs "France" day. Similarly, yes, Australia calls their day by the country, but its formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. So much more poetic, is it not? How much more instructive a memento annually to us of what we founded on July 1 than simply calling it by a name on the map. All the bunting and decoration of our national day festivities could be the same. The cost of changing stationery, philately and numismatics with a reasonable grandfathering attrition of the old stock (much like when a new monarch ascends) should be reduced to rather simple design changes and thus be quite modest.

When this is done, we will all have an official country name to be proud of and which will help us to teach our children, new fellow citizens, the World and maybe even ourselves a thing or two about how we came to be and in what form. A not so shabby but a momentous and simple way to reaffirm and recall our glorious past, celebrate our successful present and herald an even better future while truly bringing us together every July 1.

Public Health Care Redux

What the Canadian people saw for the first time last week in the infamous BCCA Day decision was the FINE PRINT of Canadian Public Health Care. Imagine if any Canadian politician spelled it out quite that way in a campaign: "We will provide you with the Health Care you need to live in return for your tax dollars UNLESS we can deprive you of it 'in accordance with the Principles of Fundamental Justice'". Their career would be at an end. Oh, and don't forget about the beautiful National Unity angle involved in this sage verdict -

"Not Applicable in the Province of Quebec and every other civilized jurisdiction in the World." Remember, when they tell you that preserving our single-provider Health Care System is all about preventing the advent of a "two tier" system, just say,"It's already here thanks to the Day Case!" (unless our equally politicized, elite govt-suckling and left wing supreme court somehow sees the intellectual irony of it all and, before killing themselves from their own confusion, rule in favour of the Plaintiffs)

For, the BC Appeals decision would make sense if we were allowed to do what every other country in the World allows its people to do - buy health insurance. Then the Court could have plausibly said that at least one principle of fundamental justice in real life - that you should pay the piper if you called the tune of leaving yourself uninsured and relied on the promise of free public health care to be fulfilled - can be used to deprive you of compensation or specific performance to restore your life, liberty and security of the person rights. But of course the private insurance option has been foreclosed to Canadians BY LAW for almost 40 years and so...Until that changes, Governments throughout Canada MUST pay, one way or the other, for the promise of giving you the health care you need NOW!

If the SCC upholds this execrable decision, then it will become apparent that the Weimar Republic wheeze, that was supposed to pass as a "Bill of Rights" for HUMANS and not Governments, in 1982, is a pointless load of drivel that was designed to protect our rights only at the convenience of Government of the State, for the State and by the State. We will have declared our full independence from Britain only to become slaves to and dependent on our own governments'  caprice.

Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité From Sea to Sea!

This is how the appeal of the Day Health Care Case should be argued before the SCC:

You should not have to be Rich to get the Health Care you need to preserve your Life, Liberty and Security of the Person in Accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Justice.

Let's break this down. First, we list just what are the Principles of Fundamental Justice. Among These are Equity (fairness!), Contract, Equality and Due Process.

It is patently unfair, inequitous, inequable and inequitable to deny a person the right to get the health care they need, when it was promised by law and one was denied the option of insuring oneself UNLESS one (like the judges who made the decision last week) is wealthy and/or well-connected and/or of a high social status and education.

It is contrary to any principle of contract law and a fundamental breach of contract to exact taxes from the citizen in return for delivering a health care system that will provide for your health care needs and fail to do it. Damages or compensation needs to be paid as a result,, in this case, money to seek private care. Worse, again, all provinces have made it illegal for someone to get Health Care Insurance for listed OHIP services reinforcing the breach and inequity of the circumstances and, of course, leaving only the Rich the chance to rectify this injustice for themselves.

It is versus not only the Section 7 provision but arguably also the section 15 (disability) Equality provisions of the Charter to deprive someone of their Section 7 rights due to social or economic status or conditions. (And, remember, Section 15 does not limit itself only to the headings of inequality that appear in the provision)

It is arguably against the Section 12 provision guaranteeing that you are not to be subjected to Cruel and Unusual TREATMENT or Punishment to deny someone the health care they need due to social or economic status or conditions.

It is against the general principles of Due Process, usually applied to those in the criminal justice system but also used in the civil system (e.g.: discovery) for a person to be deprived of their Section 7 rights due to social or economic status or conditions - Justice in Health Care Delayed is Literally Health Care Denied!

For all these reasons, I believe the Day Legal Team can amply prove that, by definition, Section 7 rights are being denied to the patient-plaintiffs and not in accordance with several of the most important "Principles of Fundamental Justice" that we all readily recognize, that are the bedrock of our Rule of Law (not to mention a Law School Syllabus) and that we all hold dear.

Above all, it is more than a blank, legal technicality but an excruciating obscenity for the very individuals who benefit from this iniquitous system to claim that those less fortunate than them should put up with this because of their pretzel-like legalisms. What is obviously a case of one set of members of the Elite (judges and lawyers) giving another set of the Elite (bureaucrats and politicians) cover for their breach of their express social contract with their constituents, many of them the most vulnerable and distressed in society, is only made more searingly shocking by the fact that these Elites are precisely the people who have the least to fear from the Grim Reaper of Public Health Care. Above all, this decision is meant to bail out the governments from paying for the health care promised ostensibly via legal "justice".But, I have the oddest feeling that, if this Home Truth was brought home to the Santa Clauses on the Rideau in argument, they would surely lose the case and be disqualified for being way too honest.

I find it bitterly ironic that I am using in some ways a Marxist classist analysis to achieve a conservative goal that I have sought all of my life, but the ones who erected the Marxist system that has brought all of this on can lie in the hospital bed they made!

Paradox 2

There is another paradox we find with trade today - as we get fatter and more comfortable from the goods and services we enjoy practically tariff-free, we get more tolerant of the tariffs that remain even when they obviously make the item more expensive. The perfect example is dairy. Most of us are not dependent on the price of food precisely because of the Free Trade World we live in.

 We are more prosperous than ever and get more goods and services than ever often at no tariff because they literally aren't covered by the obsolete "Tariff rate schedules" that used to be so encyclopedic (e.g.: computers and cellphones). It seems a small price to pay to have dairy or poultry be more dear than  it should when your main budget problem is whether you can go to Disney World this year (where you will blissfully consume BGH dairy!). Patriotism and ferocious lobbying of our "statesmen" does the rest.

 Thus, the more benefit from free trade, the more likely we are to tolerate marginal protectionism. It's not fair or right, especially to those of us who live from one grocery bill to the next, but it explains (along with shall we say "low information" habits) why there appears to be absolutely no real political constituency to fight this even in the urban areas where you would think it would  be a natural cause (witness the absurd Lewis memo). What happened to Bernier certainly is used pour encourager les autres on the issue! Can a constituency be created and rallied to fight this? Of course. But it will need leadership and heft and I do not know where it will come from in a country where one of the reasons we ignore the issue is free trade has already made us too comfortable to worry.

That is why a more global approach is needed. The Supply Management system must be held up as just one of the many reasons we are not as prosperous as we should be. We are earning less than African Americans and as much as West Virginians. We are at least 33% behind the purchasing power of Ireland and the US. To get at and root out the last vestiges of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers like the Milk Laws (my favourite campaign moniker for them), we may have to use the "blind" of emphasizing the general theme that, whether it is because of regulation, tariff or monopoly, we are all making less money than we should and thus our quality of life and standard of living is being degraded (and has been in comparison to the US since at least the 1980's).

Protecting Free Trade

The "Protectionism" article on Wikipedia tells us a number of counter-intuitive things about Protection and Free Trade or Reciprocity. First, it notes the work of an economist named Irwin that asserts that it is a myth that America's industry grew and prospered due to high tariffs. America really grew he says because of her openness to people and ideas. In Sandburg's Lincoln, Abe points out that, by the 1830's, the UK had 170 million dollars invested in the US. Corn Laws, Hamiltonian tariffs and the fresh memory of two wars were not going to make the US any less an attractive place in which to invest for Britain.

Second, there are actually three reasons tariffs are imposed by a country: 1. to get revenue; for what is a "tariff" but a tax on trade? Second, protection. Third, to force other countries to arrive at reciprocity agreements to increase TRADE! Let's review that. 

First, the tariff today does not collect revenue. As Irwin's charts (a real eye opener for people who want to know about Protection history) show, the World as a whole gets not even 1% of GNP from tariffs. We get barely 1% of our federal revenue from them. Second, the tariffs, with one big exception are not protecting any one. Most of the industries our tariffs were supposed to protect either are miniscule parts of our economy now (e.g. shoes) or are gone. The exception is supply management but it is the reminder of the exception rather than the rule. The real barriers to trade are non-tariff like the ban on BGH or the Telecomms, Airline and Banking laws that give Canadian firms monopolies or "buy Canadian" policies and programs.

The third point is surely the paradox and the dilemma - sometimes maybe often you have to erect tariffs to induce potential trade partners to negotiate free trade agreements with you. This is exhibit A for the proposition that Donald Trump is the true free trader in using what appears to be on the surface a protectionist hammer. Trump makes it explicit like a Mafiosi selling protection to a shopkeeper (if the thuggish analogy pleases Trump haters so be it):"You do a deal with me, I will drop the tariffs" and usually starts dealing the moment the tariffs go up and takes them down when the deal is done. The Irwin charts show clearly that the US has been in trade deficit since 1970 with it often equalling 6% of her economy. There is no reason why the US should tolerate that if she can rectify the balance with better deals as was done with both the Chinese and USMCA deals. Yet, Wikipedia still manages to put in a few nasty shots at Trump as "trade neanderthal" anyways. 

This brings me to the other note - we're living in an era of free trade such as we have never known. Average Tariffs on Total Imports and Dutiable Imports are lower than they have ever been, especially since the coming of the Bretton Woods Agreements, the GATT/WTO and the various Trade "Rounds". This is especially true of the US but even more true of Europe. The average tariff was 20-60% from 1833 to 1945. It is now 5. The real threat to trade today is not only non-tariff barriers as mentioned above (of which Europe in particular has been an avid and hypocritical practitioner) but lopsided and unhelpful deals or non-deals that naturally enough create ill will in the countries on the wrong end of them and real damage to their economies. If you do not like Trump's trade policy know that it is the incompetent, ill-considered and insensitive fanatical devotion to free trade at any price of his predecessors that invented it. This gave Trump the constituency to take the presidency and implement a vision shared by many Americans who feel that free trade unvarnished and without looking out for the interests of the US has hollowed out their industries and denied good jobs to them.

Thus protection comes in many guises as does reciprocity and free trade. The course of history and the consensus among economists on free trade is encouraging as is the overwhelming evidence that it enriches consumers, grows economies and liberates business. However, several things must be kept in mind going forward so as to build on this critical  part of history's liberating Human Consensus:

1. Tariffs are no longer a serious revenue-collecting tool but a tool, if at all, for expanding reciprocity and freer and fairer trade. They protect no one except the specific interest it was supposed to protect but usually, if long term, leave that interest also poorer, less efficient and, sometimes, no more;

2. The two biggest enemies to free trade and reciprocity are non-tariff barriers to trade and elites who mistake their interests for the interests of their nations in this matter;

3. The Villains of trade (and we and they know who they are) must be blocked, prosecuted and ultimately punished so that they and others thinking of adopting their trade practices will be appropriately discouraged from such a course. It is true that, like in an arms race or a war, tit for tat usually just leads to worse races and wars. However, the good players should never be afraid to use the weapons given to them by the WTO to combat the baddies (I'll translate that to Chinese later).

We live in an unprecedented era of free trade and reciprocity across the globe. Paradoxically, we may have to use the tools of protection to ensure that this endures and thrives.

P.S.: BTW, check out the cartoon that heads up the "Protectionism" article in the Wikipedia. It's a delightfully metaphorical British Liberal Party Ad from 1906 that extolls free trade. That is almost certainly the great Tariff advocate, Joseph Chamberlain, as the forlorn Protection shopkeeper! I wish this ad was on the wall of the office of every legislator in the World.

A speech

What I wish the next Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada would say as soon as they are Elected:

You've heard a lot about "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" and "red tories" in the Press and from Pollsters during this Leadership Campaign. Well, I believe they're forgetting about the most important type of Conservative of all - the Freedom Conservatives. Because I believe that's what this Party you have honoured me by selecting me to lead is all about - protecting and expanding the freedom of Canadians. Today, We are all Freedom Conservatives.

We express the heritage of two Prime Ministers, one of the old Liberal Party of classical liberalism who once said,"Canada is free and freedom is its nationality!" The other of the old Progressive Conservative Party who, in introducing the first Canadian Bill of Rights to the Parliament that he and his idol, the same Liberal PM loved, said,

"I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak my mind, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."

Now that should be the pledge all of us on this party make as Conservatives, too. For it is more important than ever that we do so in this troubled time where not only our freedoms but our way of life and the Rule of Law, our Constitution are under unprecedented assault not only by interest groups, the social media and outright thugs but, I am sad to say, by our own Government.

I am here to say you all, incuding those who did not support me but also those who did not vote for our Party in the last election or may never have voted for us, that I wish to be inclusive. But, if you do not support me on the following tenets, you should vote for someone else or go home. It will be alk the same to me and the other 337 candidates on mour Team. We do not want you to support us out of convenience or boredom or tradition or even because you cannot stand the other teams.

We ant you to support us for what we stand for and because you think what we want will be better for you, your family and Canada.

If you are threatened by free markets and free enterprise, don't vote for us.

If you believe capitalism is great as long as it's politically correct and has guaranteed profits, don't vote for us.

If you are one of those people who believe that there ought to be a law to forbid every little thing that offends you, don't vote for us.

If you believe that the government is the answer and the solution for every ill we face, then please don't vote for us.

If you believe any of those things than for the love of God don't vote Bloc but please feel free to vote for one of the three other socialist parties of Canada.

On the other hand, if you support the freedom to speak without fear; the freedom to worship without penalty and the freedom to work without

hindrance, then welcome to the Conservative Party of Canada!

Come help me and my Team rid Canada of the Trudeau Gang, save our Parliament and together we'll make Freedom our National Creed again!

Reagan Consensus - Part the Latest

The Reagan Consensus and History -

It is too easy, for we who lived through the Reagan Consensus' arrival and entrenchment or have always lived in accord with it, to believe that it is some sort of political and economic comet that just arrived to blaze in our skies and never left our orbit. Because most of us were not alive when there was a pre-Reagan Consensus or certainly were not adults, we have come to believe, whether friend or enemy of it, that the Reagan Consensus was a sudden development that came almost out of the blue.

The first hint that this is wrong is the fact that there was a previous Consensus that, in itself due to its more deleterious effects, helped bring on the Reagan one. Second, in turn, we then have to look at the broader sweep of history to see how inaccurate this "current events" driven narrative is. When we do this, we also see both how durable the Reagan Consensus is and that, in fact, it is part of a trend that began centuries ago and, despite many sometimes catastrophic bumps. moves majestically on its way.

In other words, the Reagan Consensus is nothing more than the most recent and decisive victory of the move towards human freedom, knowledge and prosperity that is often said to have started in what we usually refer to as the Age of Enlightenment. But indeed, the cultural and legal foundations for this overall consensus started much earlier. 

The legal documents that were part of what I call the Human Consensus we are familiar with: the Magna Carta, the Florentine Constitution, the Bills of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution and so on. What is often forgotten is that the documents also underpinned the growth of human prosperity by anchoring freedom for mankind. For example, the most important and enduring contribution of the French Revolution to this Consensus was not the often adulterated Rights of Man but the property rights given to the middle class of France. However, some will also argue that the Human Consensus began on the Cross but that it took almost 1800 years for us to listen.

This unleashing of Humanity was also of course supported by the writings of countless thinkers in the most influential nations, including Hume, Smith, Voltaire, Descartes, Goethe, Locke, Jefferson and Erasmus, all cleaving in one way or the other to the humanism that is central to the Human Consensus. The result of this, in tandem with the coming of the industrial revolution and the social progress that came in its wake both powered by innovation, was that the human being, who had been working for barely $100 per year in all history before 1800 usually under the jackboot of a brutal tyranny, saw their income soar to $18381 by 2019 or increased almost 184 times in just over two centuries. Meanwhile, there were two countries that could be bravely called "democracies" in 1800. There are now 74 which are rated by the Democracy Index as at worst "flawed" democracies. As well, the cornucopia that has flowed from this dual advance has lowered the Misery Index considerably by reducing poverty, disease, pollution, illiteracy and starvation drastically everywhere even compared to the 1980's levels of these scourges.

Again, it is easy to miss the human progress forest for the tyranny and war trees, particularly if you are on the Left. The 20th Century saw the coming of the bloodiest wars and the most brutal and total tyrannies in history. However they, for the most part (and China still may finally slip from its last human vestiges of tyranny due to the prosperity its people have imbibed from their experimentations with the market and property rights) were defeated in those bloody wars or (in the case of Vietnam, for example) adopted the ways of the Human Consensus economically after the war was over. 

But, it is also easy for those on the Right to imagine that Reagan and his acolytes somehow descended (no doubt in a plane piloted by Goldwater while reading the National Review) from the Political and Economical philosophical heavens and wrought all the change and groundbreaking consensus by their lonesome. Even before the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR abolished itself, for example, 22 nations became democracies while Reagan was POTUS. On top of this, most of the key reforms inaugurated by him and others were introduced in barely 20 years from the deregulations of the late 70's to the tax cuts and balanced budgets of the late 90's. What seemed like an ironclad consensus as to how the World would be organized, how trade and international finance would operate and what roles the state should perform in an economy were turned on their head and shattered in the space of one generation. And, as mentioned in previous chapters, the core underpinnings of the new consensus have not (yet) been seriously threatened.

The reality is that we must view the latest Consensus as simply the most recent albeit the most intense and dramatic installment of the Human Consensus, that is, that the Human Being should reign over their affairs first only guided by the Rule of Law and Logic. When we do that, we make two edifying conclusions. One - the Reagan Consensus, far from being a phenomenon of our times, is part of a Great Movement of literally billions of people, millions of entrepreneurs, thousands of thinkers and statespeople going back to Christ. It burst forward in the Middle Ages, birthed the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment and finally truly launched for all practical intents and purposes in 1800.  It fought to fly and soar through the Industrial Revolution, the World Wars and the great totalitarianisms. Now we live amidst its glorious jubilee of triumphant fireworks from the 1970's forward and still going on today. The birth pangs and fits and starts of this Movement can be frustrating, such as when we see on the wonderfully unexpected eruption of democracy in Belarus but the almost ignored suppression of it in Hong Kong. One tax is cut here, one tax is raised there. A market we thought would always be controlled is deregulated here, another proves absurdly immune to reform there. 

But, the key, the Northern Star, that leads us to the second conclusion, that this Consensus will take, is clear when we see that it is but a part of the not inexorable or inevitable but generally victorious movement in favour of people liberating people. Reagan was right to warn us that the freedom built up over centuries can be lost by one generation. However, if we are vigilant, patient  and imaginative, we will have had the privilege and benefit of building upon and reinforcing not only the Reagan Consensus but the Human Consensus.

Next, I will  suggest ways that we can contribute to the Consensus.

Why Erin O'Toole MUST be Leader of the Conservative Party and then Prime Minister

There are some surface reasons to want Erin O'Toole to be the next Leader of the Conservative Party, the Official Opposition and then PM.

First, he has a seat in Parliament. This is no small thing when we live in this desperate environment where we are facing a PM who is serially corrupt and has no compunction about bending and breaking the Rule of Law and shutting down whole branches of our government, that is, our only democratic tool for oversight of the government and even less compunction about making the new leader wait to take a seat (as he made Jagmeet Singh wait 15 months in far less dire circumstances). While we face a literally unprecedented assault by an unprecedented prime ministerial dictator and his advisors and ministers on our Constitution in the midst of the worst challenge we have faced as a Nation in 25 years (yes, that was in 1995 when we came 50,000 votes away from losing Quebec PRE-Clarity), we simply cannot afford the bump of a byelection. Is this still a relatively ephemeral reason for choosing O'Toole? Yes, if you believe that we will be getting a vaccine for the virus that has unleashed these oppressive forces upon us by September 21, when Parliament is finally due to re-open after almost 6 continuous months of darkness. Even if the virus recedes, we will still be facing a rogue PM who will stop at nothing, including a snap election if need be, to get his way. (BTW, Sloan is an MP but cannot possibly win so he is out)

The next reason is also a relatively negative one but must be said: as a human being, like many Red Tories, Peter Mackay is a nice enough father and husband but, as a politician, he is simply not to be trusted. He is to be depended on to promise the conservative moon while running and then abandon those heights the minute there is any sign of trouble and even while winning. His career is devoid of achievement or principle followed except that set out by the Focus Group and the pollster. He is governed, as so many of his ilk are, by fear which he is afflicted by in determining any course of action and will inflict on others who get in his way. In that sense, most disturbingly, he resembles the PM in a rather casual attitude about basic values of democracy and the Rule of Law. Witness for instance, his seeming to endorse the PM's plans for regulating free speech on the internet or his infamous "stinking albatross" comment on some fellow Tories.

For a man like Mackay, who has to be the youngest "Man of the Past" in history, everything is "relative"even out most cherished ideas if they threaten one's political rear. Such a sanguine outlook might have remotely had some value in a time of perfect peace and tranquility or at least could have been tolerable. But he is one of the people who has helped the Party to lose its way intellectually under Harper and his outlook is not only ill-timed but downright dangerous in a political world where the Conservative Party appears to be the only alternative to the overwhelmingly liberal and socialist third parties and the Government. That critical choice will be weakened and may be negated under a Mackay leadership.

Now, the positives. As a person who is deeply and personally concerned with our Defence, I like that O'Toole will be the first Leader since Pearson to have any military background. This is critical in light of the neglect and lack of vision shown by both main parties in defence affairs since the 90's (including the failure owned in part by Mackay to finish the purchase of new fighters). Is this a narrow reason for liking him? No. Defence is one of the few areas of complete Federal state responsibility and is still one of the biggest parts of the Budget. We need a man in leadership and hopefully in the PMO who finally understands the need for reinforcement and reform of this department and has the brains and guts to carry it out.

Speaking of brains, I am impressed by Erin O'Toole's intellectuality. I once watched him conduct a policy seminar themed on China ( one of the greatest threats to our defence and security today and in the foreseeable future) and saw his mind working in front of me as he carefully dissected the octopus-like challenge of China. No one running for the leadership and no one in leadership of a federal party today shows anything like the depth of mind, seriousness, experience and knowledge, and ability to articulate it to people, that he has. In a word, we have a chance with O'Toole and O'Toole alone to bring an adult back to the OLO and the PMO. But that leads me to the most important reason for supporting him.

He is a man of the people. Yes, his father was an MPP. But he served 12 years in the Forces and rose to be a top lawyer with hard work and application. It is no insult to point out thus that, with relatively minor resources and not great natural talent, he has acquired and built up a remarkable career. In this way, he relates to millions of Canadians who are not necessarily Tories but believe in hard work, honesty and freedom as the passport to a better life. He thus can relate in a way that Mackay cannot, who took relative privilege and deeded opportunity and built a bridge to nowhere. He has both a tactical and strategic political vision and instinct that few, except maybe the scoundrels advising Trudeau, possess.

How did he demonstrate this to me most vividly? During one of his online seminars with Conservative Party members, he made the almost offhand but incredibly astute comment that working class voters in places like Hamilton and Windsor (areas we have written off for almost 50 years now) are no longer represented by the Liberals or the NDP, that is, their own MP's. We should therefore go after them by pointing out that we are the only Party that fights for their interests as consumers, taxpayers and above all workers who often earn their bread in politically incorrect industries like energy, auto or steel. A man with such an original, elegant and broad breadth of mind (and who reflects that he can learn from the recent success of conservatives in jurisdictions like Ontario, the UK and Australia thereby) needs to be in power, first as the Leader of the Opposition, then as, God willing, our PM.

How do we know we can trust him? We do not. We only know that we cannot trust Mackay, except perhaps to complete the Red Tory takeover of our Party, and we cannot accept another term of Trudeau and his gang in office. Erin O'Toole is most likely to preserve the Party's critical choice for Canadians and oust arguably the worst government in our history as soon as possible. Thus, he wins our provisional trust because of what he has said, done, and prioritized so far (such as his unswerving loyalty to Scheer after losing the last leadership and his promise to respect the views of all conservatives, including the stinking albatrosses) and because we have no sound other choice save neophytes or the Old Prince of Red Torydom.

 A perfect example of how and why I feel that I can lend my trust to him: in one of his ubiquitous videos (another reason I like him BTW), he appeared on a particularly hot day in Ottawa with the Parliament buildings as a backdrop. As he went through his peroration on Parliamentary democracy being under threat and why he was best to defend it, he was obviously sweating like a pig. Instead of soldiering on and dysfunctionally pretending everything was fine or editing it as no doubt a Trudeau or a Mackay would have done, he wiped his face and said words to the effect of,"Well, this was a hot one for me to do this today, wasn't it!" Any man who is that secure about himself may just deserve our loan of confidence.

Erin O'Toole has proven he is a hardworking, earnest, smart and decent man with superb political skills which his predecessor and opponents signally lack and which this country imperatively needs to defeat Trudeau and the Liberals and restore sanity, the right and respect to our governance again. He has earned and deserves my and all other voting members' vote on August 21. He must be thrust into the heart of our national affairs as soon as possible.

The Reagan Consensus - part 6

The Reagan Consensus and its Enemies -

Another threat to the Consensus is the Debt. No, not consumer debt, which is usually paid off without taxes and, after all, represents spending done voluntarily billions of times for the things we want or often need. No one worries about whether the "shelf" of private debt will overwhelm the economy even a year from now precisely because most of us will have paid it off or completely secured it (in the case of real estate or automobiles) as soon as our next credit card statement comes in. The Great Recession of 2008 was not caused by conventionally secured commercial or consumer debt. It was caused by profligate mortgage policies that many of us warned would hurt the economy and that were legislated and enforced by government (e.g.: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Carter Urban Loan programs).

For the first time in living memory and before COVID, the US and other nations were racking up enormous deficits and thus piling up debt without the excuse of an emergency or a war and, in  the case of the US, in the midst of a lengthy economic recovery and then a two year long Trump boom. Yes, Trump did not promise to balance the budget or reform entitlements (except for Obamacare, which received no GOP support in Congress) which, as we saw in the last installment, are a double threat to the Consensus. But, it is still a fact that, despite ushering in an unprecedented economic boom, despite having no Cold or Hot War and despite there being no other emergency until COVID, Trump has seen trillion dollar deficits racked up every year of his presidency.

The fact that his predecessor was at least as bad (after excoriating his predecessor as "unpatriotic" for compiling half the debt he amassed) is not an excuse for this record. However, it should be noted that quirks in the US political system established not so long ago, like the Senate's appropriations filibuster and the Budget Act of 1974, have made it hard for any POTUS to tackle this problem. The rules and laws brought in referred to have taken away his power of impoundment, his pocket veto (where one can kill one bad bit of spending without vetoing the whole budget) and his ability to avoid a government shutdown even when he holds majorities in both Houses of Congress. For example, even when the GOP controlled Congress, they refused proposed budget cuts Trump made and voted higher spending than he asked for. 

Why is all of this important? Many point out that, despite all, the US level of debt is not as bad as other countries in the West and not as bad as others in history, including the US. How is this a threat to the Consensus? The primary problem is that this overhang of debt will one day need to be paid off in the form of taxes which would afflict future generations' standard of living and discretionary income disastrously and, in turn, impair and derange the virtuous circle of the Consensus.

But there is also what can be called the "crowding out" effect. As the state borrows more, it denies the private sector the capital it needs to grow, to innovate and develop, all critical ingredients of the Consensus. The opportunities lost by this effect are countless and also often irretrievable.

Finally, the larger the public debt just as the larger the state, the more the state is able to extend its tentacles into business and even the lives of individuals that squashes not only economic promise but also personal freedom and ultimately the Rule of Law. A perfect example of this (which also harkens back to the danger to the Consensus of the cynical political use of the big Crisis) is when President Obama bullied the Car Companies' creditors into surrendering their right to sue to protect their financial interests in those companies. (Here in fact we have an example of three of the threats to the Consensus all wrapped in one: Dependency, in the form of subsidy and bailout for two enormous companies, the use of Debt to create that Dependency through TARP and, of course, the Big Crisis that set off the "need" to intervene to "save" two of the Big Three rather than just let them fail like is the rule in other industries when a company is anemic and losing.) In this case, the freedom of the creditors to run their business affairs as they deem fit was sacrificed for "the greater good", ill-defined and narrow as it was, while the Rule of Law was trampled in denying them their rightful legal remedies (and, even worse, resulted in a payoff to the very unions who had helped to ruin the companies in the first place).

Debt makes government MORE powerful not less powerful. It helps to crush the entrepreneurial spirit both morally (as in the absent "Moral Hazard" rule in bailing out the Big Banks in 2008 as "too being too big to fail" despite their authoring the disaster themselves in tandem with the Federal Government) and materially as the Debt shuts off more and more credit that could have been used to breathe life into private initiatives and ventures. Indeed, an ironic impact of the Bank and Consumer Credit "Reform" and "Protection" laws passed in response to the Great Recession was that, even as the Government and the Federal Reserve respectively incurred more and more public debt and expanded its portfolio of investments in the economy, credit became harder to get for business and individuals.

The net impact of too much debt (as a moderate level of government debt for necessary or "consensus" elements of state activity such as defence, education and infrastructure, is tolerable and even desirable and useful) is thus severely deleterious to the strong enterprising dynamics of the Consensus that makes it such an elixir for an economy. It needs to be controlled or paid off if already ruinously incurred. How to deal with what may be seemingly an insurmountable fiscal mountain? There are two approaches conservatives must take - one for the short term, one for the long term. (And here, despite the Obama and liberal propaganda to the contrary, you can cite Hamilton as your authority for deploring high levels of debt!)

In the short term, the answers include modest spending cuts. I say modest when I look at two examples. First, the Chretien government's finance minister, Paul Martin, balanced the budget of Canada by simply freezing spending despite the belief of many that it could never be done without severe spending cuts and force majeur laws to reduce public entitlements and benefits. Mike Harris balanced a budget deficit twice as large as the enormous one faced by Ontario today by cutting spending by 10% while cutting taxes by 20%! Further, Senators Lee and Paul recently demonstrated that the huge US federal deficit could be eliminated by only a 1% cut in spending per year for 5 years. A systematic outside audit of government spending can also be undertaken to reduce those infamous triplets, Waste, Fraud and Abuse. The sale of state assets and more privatization can also be good one time boosts to revenue. But, in the end, general spending must be controlled (and soon in light of the COVID Bubble of Debt that has recently ballooned).

Conservatives can also cite supply side economics and the Laffer Curve to show that the budget can and should be balanced not just by spending cuts (and repeat many times that spending is the culprit behind mounting public deficits, not lack of revenue) but by revenue from economic growth from tax reduction and reform. But, in the long term, they must also propose new statutory rules to control against the return of out of control spending and soaring debt and deficit levels. For instance, the removal of baseline budgeting that literally makes it illegal to actually cut spending levels from where they were the year before. Further, balanced budget laws and constitutional amendments with reasonable bands for the fluctuation of spending especially in well-defined emergencies. As well, tackling a big source of government debt (and of natural opposition to the Consensus) - the far too generous pay, benefit and pension arrangements for public sector workers. (Yet, beware "statutory rules" as a panacea - in 1999 as part of setting up the Euro currency Zone, the EU set "convergence" guidelines for the level of debt and deficits acceptable relative to GDP as a condition of membership in the Zone. Today only a handful of mostly small members of the EU have complied and the non-compliant are still allowed to remain in the Zone! Without the political will, there is no way.). Finally, a Sinking Fund based on a portion of any new revenues can be set up to start to reduce the Debt.

Reagan once said that a nation cannot long thrive where 37% of its product is the tax collector's share. The average Canadian now sends 43 cents on the dollar to tax. It was 33 cents when Reagan said those words, in 1964. The mushrooming of public debt, despite tax increases and the addition of several major taxes (including Capital Gains, the GST/HST and the Carbon Tax), since then proves that the answer to combating this threat to the Consensus Reagan helped to forge is to control spending. If this is not done, the economic miracle wrought by the Reagan Consensus will be constantly vulnerable to that fiscal grim reaper of hope, promise and creativity, excessive public debt. If it is not controlled and reduced, it will enable a new financial and political tyranny that may extinguish our freedom and the Rule of Law that protects our liberty.

In the next installment, I will look at where the Reagan Consensus fits into the sweep of History.

Errata and addenda with one big errata, indeed

The selection of Senator Kamala Harris proves that Biden will NOT do anything to be POTUS (even if only for a year? By his impossibly narrow criteria, it should obamiously have been Michele Obama) but it DOES prove that Harris will. Way back in January, she called Biden a racist segregationalist (who can forget her fake tears over "being bussed" when it was actually impossible for that to have happened to her personally?). Now she carries his name with pride and in the second most important political harness in the World (hopefully never to be the most with all the disaster that that implies +). Suffice it to say that Harris, after denouncing her own record as an AG in CA, will be the perfect black female complement to Biden who has spent most of his campaign denouncing what paltry achievements he was able to cobble together in just 45 years. She is the African American XX chromosomed classic example of Vidal's evil Senator Cantwell ("Bad character in a man is tragedy enough; but for a Nation it is a disaster.") or...Hilary. "God bless America, Land that I love, stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above."

THIS JUST IN!...Patrick Brown is a stupid asshole. Search: "Mayor Patrick Brown's Hockey Bag" to see what a truly dumb scumbag those of us not living in Brampton really dodged.

Insurance Can Do It! -

 Are there too many horses out of the Barn for us to consider the idea I had at least 3 months ago and was reminded of again by a caller on talk radio in the States? Might the thieving monopolist assholes that comprise the Placid Gold-filled Lake we call our "Insurance" Industry have been conscripted to underwrite a National/Provincial COVID Insurance Plan? Any surplus or bankrupting liabilities could have been underwritten in turn through a Re-Insurance Program that would have cost the taxpayer a fraction of the cost of the COVID stimulus SO FAR. The cost to a business (beyond maintaining local authority standards and PPE) would have been the premiums (which the state would no doubt insist be nominal or at cost) and some stationery would be nothing compared to being closed down.

It would work this way: If you want to go to visit any hard business site anywhere, you must sign a release to the effect that you will not sue the business if you get COVID unless you can prove gross negligence (like not complying with mask requirements). This release would be posted at the main entrance of the business or organization (church or school) with a petition style name section that would also require a name and phone number in print so follow-up could be effected if there was an outbreak. (Hell, use the lists for marketing if you want!)

In the end, the customer or parent or student or worker or parishioner would have a choice. After all, there is only one reason for not going to a business:: fear of dying from COVID or giving it to someone who dies. If you can prove that happened (or temporary disability) due to gross negligence, your estate or family can claim damages accordingly. If you do not want to go, do not. Choice: I like the sound of that! Making the Insurance companies do their patriotic duty without more obscenely huge profits - priceless!! It's never too late for our benighted and beknighting "leadership" to prove they are more than medical stenographers and give us a chance to live with some sort of modicum of normalcy again.

The Reagan Consensus - Part 5

The Reagan Consensus and its Enemies -

The next great threat to the Reagan Consensus is Dependency. No, I do not refer to the danger of being turned into a colony by some foreign power (though that is more likely when the population is taking more than it gives) nor the possibility of substance abuse (although, addiction to alcohol and/or drugs is often a result of such a life). I refer to the increasing dependency of Americans and peoples of other nations on state aid. This dependency is most classically manifested in welfarism. A person lives no life but that that is supported by government assistance of some kind. The most obvious examples of public welfare in the US and which increased all of their client loads dangerously during the Obama presidency, are welfare ("Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), food stamps and Medicaid. 

After the historic bipartisan Welfare Reform in 1996, surely one of the best examples of building on the Consensus, tens of millions were lifted out of poverty, including some 20 million children. But, over the years, just as medicaid was expanded to cover more and more children and adults and pharmacare given to even the wealthiest aged, the program was chipped away. The Federal Govt., rather than encouraging the States to make people work for welfare from an "envelope" of Federal funding, the core concept behind the reform, turned this on its head as now the US encouraged states to drop work requirements and gave incentives for bureaucrats to get more people on food stamps.

This aggressive effort to roll back (or ratchet back?) welfare reform created a new, growing and dangerous dependency on government which stifled enterprise, hard work and the incentive to retrain to get into the workforce again. For instance, jobless benefits given out in the Stimuli of 2008 and 2009 were often more lucrative than working at even a job above the minimum wage. We are now seeing this phenomenon again with the ill considered, profligate, badly aimed and largely unnecessary COVID stimuli. 

Worse, so-called "industrial policy" also known as Corporate Welfare is also apparently making a comeback. Through myriad tariffs, loan programs, deductions, monopolies, regulations and subsidies, companies at all levels, but most conspicuously and shamefully big business, are receiving state support. This has the same effect on the corporation as it does on the individual - it crushes the incentive or need for competitiveness, innovation, efficiency, service and fair pricing. This effect of dependency on both company and individual is fatal to the magic circle of work ethic, creativity and opportunity married to labour and capital that the Consensus needs to continue to grow and sustain.

The loss to a society's morale of such a constant institutionalized and general dependency in a population and its commercial sector can be witnessed in Europe. There, especially France, Spain and Italy but to some extent most of the rest of Western Europe, the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions never really took complete hold. Large sectors of their economies, aided, abetted and compounded by the bureaucratic monstrosity known as the EU, are still much more regulated by the State in great detail, particularly labour but also in quid pro quo heavy subsidy and trade protections for the corporate sector. France especially never privatized large parts of its economy such as banks. The result - horrific economic stagnation, lack of innovation and modernization as well as chronic joblessness and underemployment. 

This, too, almost took hold in the US under Obama, who was openly hostile to business, re-regulated large parts of the economy especially health care and health insurance, interfered in the auto industry, launched welfare expansion and discouraged or outright shut down energy exploration and exploitation. The result was an historically slow recovery despite massive deficit spending that doubled the national debt and repeated stimulus and monetary quantitative easings. This was only arrested by the coming of Trump's presidency and his economic and tax reforms, deregulations and determination to again "roll back" the attempt of Obama to turn back the ratchet on welfare reform. It remains to be seen whether COVID will provide a new excuse and opportunity for welfare theorists and advocates to get their way and apply this deadly opiate of the Consensus again as they did in 2008-2013 (when an estimated 47% of Americans were taking some state benefit).  The Trump Tax Reform also eliminated the ludicrous state and local tax deduction for the rich and the Obamacare mandate while Trump tried to allow consumers to have some ability to buy health insurance across state lines, among other practical, free market and cost control steps for health care.)

Conservatives must fight this first by listening to and advocating for the warnings of economists like Arthur Laffer (and a key architect of the Consensus) that government dependency coming in the form of so-called "stimulus" is wolf bane for the dynamic economy of the Consensus. Then the conservative, if successful in delaying, hobbling or at least blunting the impact of such dependency-fostering programs, must then offer an alternative - self-reliance and choice. A good example of this was the proposal by conservatives to grant a payroll tax holiday and the Bush scheme to allow young people to invest their Social Insurance premiums. 

The problem with these ideas on both occasions was follow through and the simple political will to do what they proposed. At the first sign of political trouble, the conservative political parties backed down on ideas like this. Yet, the tax reform by Trump, which amongst other things allowed American parents to invest for their child's primary and secondary education tax-free, welfare reform and the Harris Ontario government's abolition of corporate subsidies and "workfare program" all show that, when conservatives are united and strong and remain committed to tangible reform of entitlements and welfare despite the often absurd and demagogic opposition to patently sensible policies, they can win.

If the Reagan Consensus is to dodge the insidious bullet of welfare dependency on the state, conservatives must not just talk about programs of more freedom and independence for people, they must do the hard work of researching about, presenting and arguing for these ideas and stick to them through thick and thin. Ideas like auto-investment of government benefits or premiums, school choice and vouchers, broadly lower taxes and regulations to get business off the government bread line and lower and tougher welfare in return for on the job training, daycare and other benefits (not least of which is the dignity of working or building a business of your own under your own direction) are all ideas that can reduce state dependency, restore the work ethic and business ethics and build on the Reagan Consensus. 

Conservative Idiots, the Good Old Days, Dr Fauci and the Ump, and Judge Sullivan in the Alfred Hitchcock Hour

The image is immortal - the Baseball Manager kicking dirt in the face of an Umpire who he believes has made the wrong call. Often, his beef is that the Ump called exactly the same play against his team but for the other team in the same situation. Dr. Fauci, a keen baseball fan (whose mask has the Washington Nationals on it) would be familiar with this iconic scene of the Greatest American Pastime. That situation is precisely what Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) was getting at when he questioned Fauci about his positions on congregate events AKA gatherings.

Since the good doctor has told us to stay away from bars and not fly (even though he has done the same things recently) and not go to church or funerals, would he also admonish people from attending protests?, he asked. The Doctor would not say yes. The Doctor does not seem to understand that many people cannot understand how the virus apparently may have chosen "favourites" as to which congregations it will infect and which not. In this case, it only affects law-abiding citizens who just want to live and mind their own business but not people who gather to hate on America or do worse. It makes many millions of people feel just like that baseball manager.

________

Will the same Republicans who never predicted Trump would win; made fun of Reagan; believed we would never ever hold the Senate or the House or both or ever win the presidency again after 1996, 2008 or 2016; and never believed the conservative movement might come to win anything; and now counsel despair, surrender and retreat again at every turn, poll or soundbite, possibly take a deep breath and acknowledge that this is actually an historically great time for the GOP by any measure?

From 1930 to 1994, the GOP held the House for 8 years. From 1930 to 1980, it held the Senate for 8 years. After 1980, it held the Senate for 24 years and after 1994, it held the House for 20 years (of which it held both houses for 14 years). It has swept the South for the first time since the Civil War and taken over most state houses and assemblies for the first time since the 1920's. It has held the White House for 24 of the past 40 years. It is an historically good time for the GOP and conservatives.

SO why so much sturm and drang from the usual GOP suspects? The answer is "conservative idiots". A little background. I was once called a conservative idiot by a staffer at the then National PC HQ (who still didn't mind using my services as a volunteer). By that he meant that I put my principles (which I also think means my country, too) before my Party. I wore and still wear that title like a badge of honour.

However, I have discovered a different sort of conservative idiot altogether who should wear that title with shame. That is, the conservative who usually ends up in one of two camps. First, they call for conservative change like Trump has wrought these past few years more relentlessly, prolifically and checklist-like than any president in living memory, including many things that these self same conservative idiots have been telling us for generations needs to happen for the good of the Nation and the People, our allies and our posterity. But then, when it actually does happen, they decide that there's a "nice" way to do conservative change and a nasty way to do it. Or, they turn out to have not really believed in these things after all or thought they could never happen and are shocked and even resentful that an actual officeholder carried it out, get cold feet and turn on him. "It's all great 'on paper' but you really don't think I was SERIOUS about doing THAT?" By contrast, I know I am not the type of idiot who would ever look the gift horse of conservative policy actually becoming law in the mouth and would be too busy dancing in the streets to complain.

The second reason for conservative idiocy is more particular and personal and has to do with of course, the Donald. The Donald is not a real conservative. He never held office. He never went to the right schools or was in the right clubs. He's married to that woman. He's a sex fiend. He has that accent. He's got that hair. I wish he would STOP tweeting! I am SO embarrassed! Even though I never supported him anyway (at least not at any crunch time), I cannot bear the burden of supporting him anymore. No one from that nice thinktank invites me to their gabfests anymore, you know the one with 20 different wines and 100 types of cheese that Roberts always VIP's at? How dare those evangelicals support him, don't they see how unChristian that is?!, etc., etc. For my part, I could care less if my conservative saviour was a golf pro who wore loud pants, a grocer's daughter with funny teeth, a drunken inkstained wretch who fancied red cowboy hats or a second rate actor who used a lot too much brill cream wore ties that were much too wide: if they deliver the goods, I sign the bill of sale with pleasure and back them all the way. I backed Ted Cruz until May, 2016 when he had clearly lost the nomination fight and then backed Trump all the way.

The only thing that is good about conservative idiots is that they are a vanishingly smaller and smaller (although very loud) demographic of the electorate even in the GOP and (and this is another reason they hate Trump, Gingrich and others who have really built what success the practical and conservative movement has had these past 40 years) they have had little to do with or cannot claim the credit for the historic success of the movement they claim to lead.

From 1962, The Alfred Hiitchcock Hour tells us and the infamous Federal Hanging Judge Sullivan a parable of justice. Martin Landau plays a top criminal defence lawyer who just got Frank Gorshin off of a horrible murder rap only to be told by him that he is guilty. The tormented Landau wants to report the client to the DA but he is told by his senior partner and by the trial judge that, of course, he can't do it because of double jeopardy and a perjury case would go no where. Meanwhile, he would be reported to the ABA for breaching his solicitor-client confidentiality privileges. The wise and decent judge (who doesn't even break a sweat when told by Landau that he presided over this apparent injustice) also points out that, if you think he should get the chair, the accused would likely have been found criminally insane by the jury anyway and the judge would then send him to an asylum (and it turns out he is insane). Bottom line - the defence lawyer should have done and said nothing (sadly too late for the vigilante-style hit he calls down on his client!).

Now, Landau, the seasoned criminal lawyer, should have figured all of this out in the first act of the show. Similarly, Judge Sullivan should have saved the People, the Justice Department, Sidney Powell, the Appeals Courts and, above all, General Mike Flynn, a lot of trouble by figuring out from the start that, in our system, once the prosecutor decides not to proceed with a matter and no matter how bad the accused may be and even if he has already entered a plea of guilty (which Flynn has resiled against) and even if there was not ample evidence of prosecutorial and police misconduct and abuse of Flynn's rights, he must dismiss. He may rail for hours in open court about how bad Flynn is (although surely not as bad as the many accuseds Judge Sullivan dismissed for that he knew to be terrorists, druglords, mafiosi and other predators) and refer him for a perjury beef and the DOJ staff to the ABA. But then he must do nothing else or simply compound the injustice done to an American Citizen who, until this matter, served his country as dutifully if not more than Judge Sullivan. 

Sadly, it would appear that the esteemed Judge's friends on the Appeal Court prefer to give us a Hitchcockian twist ending and make us and Flynn wait until the last frame of this too longrunning show to get justice. 
--
John M. Farant

The Reagan Consensus - Part 4

The Reagan Consensus and its Other Enemies

The other chief threats to the above are three: the Big "Crisis", State Dependency and Debt.

First, the "Big Crisis". The chief recent examples of this are COVID and Climate Change. But the Opposition has used past crises like the Great Depression, the Cold War and The Great Recession to too much effect to advance their assault on economic liberty and, frankly, our general freedom as well and to expand the state. The most memorable iteration publicly of this Left wing strategy is Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's infamous assertion that,"You should never let a good crisis go to waste." In other words, the Left will use a mortal or severe usually "unprecedented" emergency to drive through projects that normally the people would never democratically approve in the normal course but can be scared into doing by the crisis or distracted enough and disempowered enough to let happen anyway even if it has nothing to do with the crisis. For example, Social Insurance was inaugurated by the US during the Great Depression even though it had nothing to do with the chief problem of that era - younger (18-35 year old) workers being jobless. Obamacare was introduced and passed in the midst of a recession caused by bad mortgages not high medical bills. Again, the combination of fear and ignorance is irresistible especially when you can depict those on the Right as "heartless" for not agreeing with measures that generally are irrelevant and may even make things worse but seem humane.

Today, the twin examples of this are clearly COVID and Climate Change, although the latter has been around for three decades and the other obviously more acute and recent. They have one thing in common, the use of a crisis to gain more control of and reduce the freedom and choices of people and expand the powers and freedoms of the state. They (as to some degree the other crises also did) have another even more disturbing thing in common - PC wrath. In other words, there appears a "consensus" especially in media and academe and politics that one must feel only one way about the issue (that is, it is urgent and must be dealt with at all costs) or pay the price of being suppressed or even oppressed in the form of firing, shaming or worse. A similar trend is seen in the Race Riots of the past two months. Not just politicians but business and schools and communities are being bullied into complying with the BLM view of the World. There is but one consolation from the last example - it is unlikely to directly affect the Reagan Consensus but it is still a striking and chilling example of the Big Crisis strategy of public advocacy on the Left.

Of COVID or Climate Change, clearly it is Climate Change (as an issue) that has the most potential for damaging the Reagan Consensus. While COVID's impact on economics generally has been historically damaging, it is unlikely to be a factor in the long term. Although, it must be said that the unprecedented assault on civil liberties to defend against a not especially deadly virus could be a useful example for the Left to use to justify future more permanent damage.

Climate Change programs of Carbon Emission control and management have already cost the World's major economies (except of course Russia, China, India, Brazil and most of the so-called "developing countries" like world class ocean polluter, Vietnam) trillions, the lost opportunity of which cannot be measured, millions of jobs and 1000's of businesses actual or potential for little apparent proven benefit. But the most important result has been the restriction of people's freedom to make their pwn lifetstyle and business and financial choices thus undermining the genius of the Reagan Consensus and its proven ability to grow economies and lift people out of poverty and generally improve the Standard of Living. All of these schemes, even the tortured and proven failures, the Carbon Pricing systems, have expanded state power and reach and presumption into our lives and business in a way we would never normally tolerate if we were not convinced by the Opposition that the Earth was going to fry in 12 years (as AOC, Greta and others with greater pretensions than them have told us as they told us 20 years ago).

This use of Climate Change must be fought and contained before it does the kind of damage its policy thrust can do, especially, the United States, which has led the Reagan Consensus since at least 1981. How to do it? First, you fight it with the best weapon you have that the other side claims they own - the Science. Keep pointing out that the Earth has not significantly warmed since 1997. That the "Hockey Stick" is a fraud. That many fine climatologists are on your side in this regard. This is important above all because it attacks the fear and ignorance on this matter that is so crucial to the Opposition succeeding on this issue.

However, as we have seen in the past, the Opposition's friends in the Media and Academia will suppress or bully sources contrary to the "Cult" of Climate Change. For example, despite predicting in 2003 that Manhattan would be underwater by 2012 in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore is still celebrated as a CC Hero even as he lives in a house that creates more Carbon Emission than a whole village. You are liable to be labelled a crackpot for trying to fight this only by attacking what the Press practically has made it Style Guide material not to dispute..

What is also needed is an approach which at once solves the "problem" posed by Climate Change but also builds on the Reagan Consensus. This should never mean selling out to the imperative of Climate Change or even admitting it is anthropogenically caused. It means proposing a solution that reinforces the free markets that are the core of the Consensus but at the same time proposing an idea that the moderate non-partisan voter will perceive as constructive. Indeed, this approach would truly help to reduce pollution in general not just carbon emissions. It is a proposal to reduce or eliminate income taxes in favour of consumption taxes. The conservative does not have to worry about what to call it but can use whatever moniker they think will curry favour with the average voter, the Press and even the Green Lobby. Call it the Carbon Tax, the  Pollution Tax, the Garbage Tax or the BBQ tax. It only matters that conservatives be seen to fight the "crisis" at hand while at the same time not just protecting the Consensus but adding to it. 

The Boon from such tax reform (which to help with another danger to the Consensus, the Debt, should be as revenue-neutral as possible) would be as incalculable and myriad as the damage from CC programs have, to this point, been. Such an approach does not just protect one's freedom but expand it. For, after all, most of us have no choice but to earn a living but we can choose whether or not to buy most things except the staples. A world of consumption tax leaves the consumer free to expand their income and whether to invest it (without tax) or spend it on some extra bauble and pay the (relatively high) tax for doing so.

A country that goes to such a model (as only too few and relatively small nations have shown) would become a magnet for capital and see its economy roar, per capita income explode, innnovation blossom and its jobless disappear. All of the benefits of the Consensus thus would be trebled. And, yes, it would be just by dint of its great prosperity (studies show the richest nations are the freest and the cleanest) but also due to its punishing polluting activity via taxation be much cleaner still than  before.

By this strategy, the conservative statesperson both sees off one of the most pervasively dangerous and damaging enemies of the Reagan Consensus and takes that Consensus to new heights. As in the old phrase, we can make chicken salad out of the chicken doodoo of politics and the issues of the day. A way to compound this virtuous effect - recall it was Reagan and Mulroney who got rid of Acid Rain and call for any surplus revenues from the Consumption Taxes to be paid towards building new plant for water and sewage treatment. We can be the Green (blue) Party in reality (as opposed to the radical marxist one that talks a good game but hasn't cleaned a damn thing in its whole existence) that cleaned up our harbours, lakes and rivers and conserved them for generations to come. Thus we also demonstrate we know that money is not everything but it can help with the rest.

This approach can also work with COVID - for instance, tax holidays and suspending (in a lovely intersection of two Crises) the Ontario Hydro "Feed-in" contracts for renewable energy that have so damaged the economy in the name of CC. Whenever an Emmanuel says that a Crisis is too good a thing to waste, we need to agree and then propose the urgently needed conservative ideas for expanding freedom and the Consensus that the Crisis demands!

More on the Debt and Dependency tomorrow.

 

The Reagan Consensus - Part 3

The Reagan Consensus and the Trojan Horse -

There are several threats to the Consensus that are substantive.

The first I discussed before - the Trojan Horse. The Opposition knows that it cannot get up on its hinds and hope to gain and hold power by attacking the Consensus head-on. This was proven by the disastrous Labour-Corbyn leadership and campaign of last December. So, like Biden and to some extent Trudeau, they pretend to be "moderate". But, as pointed out before, the biggest threat comes from the unelected - whether in the form of a Black Lives Matter, a CNN or a Brookings. They all have one thing in common - they masquerade their otherwise unpalatable agenda by calling themselves "disinterested, objective non-partisans".

The worst and most dangerous example of this change to the Consensus camouflaged as "legitimate discussion of progressive change" comes from something that Davos and other of its minions and peers are promoting ever more aggressively - something called "corporate governance". It represents the dawning realization of the Opposition that the best way to undermine and at least "control" Capitalism without appearing to touch the red lines of the Consensus is from within. 

What is the meaning of "corporate governance" in this context? Well, as the Davos official suggested in referring to it recently, it means weighing "short term profits against long term". It sounds good doesn't it? How many times have the gurus of finance told us that short term investment usually results in long term disaster? But, what they really mean by this will ultimately mean no or less profits in both the short and long term. All this is done in the name of "Social Justice", Climate Change, COVID or other of the latest cause celebre of the Left. But it's all just cover for their most important objective - their controlling people and shaming capitalists into reaching that goal.

How would it work? Normally, the "stakeholders" in a company are the owners or shareholders, the executives, the workers, the customer and the corporate entity, itself.  In other words, the people and entities that actually take part in the company financially in some way. The Capitalist system assumes that these natural interested parties will thereby run the company, work for it or buy or sell to it and operate according to their interests and the interest of the company at all times. If they do not, particularly if the Directors of the company fail in this regard or workers illegally strike, the law could be used to punish the malfeasant. Good business under the Rule of Law thus creates untold benefits for all.

The Davos Corporate Governance or "Reset of Capitalism" scheme would open this up to people and institutions that don't necessarily have any skin in the game of the company - governments, interest groups, the general public who may not even buy a single thing from the company, etc. Worse, the new stakeholders would not necessarily act on the interests of the company but according to the nebulous concept of "the public interest" that could theoretically change depending on who last had the microphone at the latest "stakeholders' " meeting. The result  would be that, as the Davos flack freely admits, profit would no longer be the first consideration of the company. 

If such a system took hold - two things would happen: (1) the laws would have to be changed so that stockholders in the company would no longer be allowed to sue if the New Age Agenda enforced on the Directors of the company led to ruin and malfeasance; and (2) many companies would be less profitable and maybe even go bankrupt and many more companies would not be formed as entrepreneurs fleed the jurisdiction that adopted this approach or simply refused to incorporate (although, one has to imagine that attempts would be made to have this apply to private companies, too) creating jobless and hurting consumer choice, price and service. 

Another ironic result of this approach is that many companies that could have done some real good for their communities (as they do already) beyond "simply" investing millions and employing thousands, would be far less able to do so or not be able to do this at all as they were stifled by such a disastrous concept. But the threat is real and dangerous precisely because of how it is dressed up with touchy feely titles like "corporate citizenship" and how it goes for everyone's apparent dislike of profits (especially, those made by others not ourselves). In other words, if Smith was right that, when people act in their own interest in the market, they are being directed by an invisible hand guiding them to a public interest as well, then this scheme would once and for all kill that blessing of free enterprise and multiply the curse of the reverse happening - people purporting to act in the "public interest" being guided by an invisible (and sometimes all too visible) hand of some private interest they did not know, most likely the megalomaniacal, the rent-seeker and the corrupt.

Certainly, like with other regulatory schemes, this, too, could easily be "captured" by big business and used by them to dominate their markets and exclude up and coming competitors that could not afford to support the new system. This in turn would be to the loss of consumers in increasingly monopolistic markets. It is also reminiscent of the ironic result of so-called anti pollution laws - they gave a license to companies and individuals to pollute by abolishing the right of individuals or companies to sue if their property was polluted by someone in return for compliance with regulation and fines from the authority. Similarly, in return for effectively surrendering control over the management of their companies, directors and executives will be able to compromise the interests of the shareholders without fear of lawsuit and maybe even get a gong from an organization like Davos for doing it!

Conservatives need to be on their guard against these types of schemes and always call them out for what they are - the back door to undoing the Consensus of economics, finance and governance that has been the basis for the incredible progress, prosperity and freedom of the human race in the past 40 years. The best way of doing this is public governance. Make it clear that the biggest threat to our welfare and liberty comes not from rapacious companies but from an overweaning state. I say we conservatives put forward our own set of "governors' governance" rules that would check any intrusion into the markets such as the corporate governance scheme and check their "freedom" to intervene in the economy.

This could be achieved by statutory rules restricting spending, taxation and debt to certain levels (such as those set by the EU for "convergence" by its members albeit hardly observed) and forbidding baseline budgeting. Regulations of any sort would be closely audited for their true cost benefit by outside audit and cut at least three for every one made. The government would be expelled from the remaining areas of the economy they "manage" like dairy, poultry, telecomms, airlines and banking here in Canada. Outdated practices and procedures, waste fraud and abuse and other monopolistic and corrupt practices in government everywhere would be stamped out. 

Above all, the state would be shrunk in size gradually in proportion to the GNP. The smaller the government, the less chance of corruption, waste and the threat of megalomaniacs perpetrating insidious and calamitous ideas like "corporate governance." A Grand Bargain could be offered to Davos-wannabe business and entrepreneurs - in return for you staying away from these bossy schemes and giving up the bribery (e.g.: subsidies) that so often comes with them, we'll get rid of the corporate tax (which only consumers pay anyway) and streamline regulation. With the resultant savings, you can visit pompous but hopefully feckless gabfests like Davos all you want and donate to the causes of your choice with all the munificence you desire (and we'll let you deduct that, too! seriously, is there any better example of Rube Goldberg than Corporate Governance as a way to save the World? One big company or entrepreneur's 100% charity write-off will do far more to save the World than CG ever will for a whole nation)...

Expanding the freedom to choose of the millions while limiting the freedom of the ideologue few and the state to dominate us with their siren song causes all the while building on the Consensus - now that's a real plan for a better future for us all.

But there are other threats to the Consensus and I will deal with them tomorrow.

The Reagan Consensus Part Two

Or:  The Enemies of the Reagan Consensus and Why We Should Not be Afraid of Them -

The enemies of the Reagan Consensus ( established since at least 1990, I say) are nothing if not absurd but sometimes sublime. The absurd both in substance and in form has to be shallow, demagogic, dissonant Joe Biden. He is the less apparently noxious specimen of the "moderate" Left. They only attack the Consensus if they know it is "unpopular" and only in incremental steps that can be dangerous only if you let it go so far.

 Perfect example: Biden announced that, while Trump's reduction in the US corporate tax rate from 35% (where by the way it had been even during Reagan's time) to 21% was "disastrous", it would be just right, Goldilocks, if it was at, say..., 28%. Notice that is so arbitrary as to literally be a trial lawyer's "splitting of the difference" to settle a fact that only 3 years ago was the "consensus": that the US should have a 35% corporate tax rate. This tells us one narrow thing and one broad thing. The narrow is that the so-called policy "ratchet" that Thatcher warned about can actually work in our favour and was in fact what the Reagan Consensus did - to change the way we are required to look at major areas of economic, financial and government policy fundamentally and hopefully forever (more on that later).

The broad thing it teaches us is that our opposition works with fear. It uses it to try to get its way on a wide range of issues from Climate Change to Gun  Control to COVID. But those who fearmonger are themselves the captive of fear. This leads to my first point about why the New Consensus will last long - its enemies are generally afraid to challenge it as they still perceive it is too unpopular to do so. As long as we mount a decent defence of the Consensus and remind people why they like it 24/7, we've nothing to fear from our fearful opponents for the most part.

That brings us to the more sublime enemies of the Consensus whose insidious, subtle attack on it is far more dangerous to us in the long run. They often come from academia or the media or the "expert class", the fabulously wealthy or, worst of all, the PONGO class. Above all, they present themselves as "apolitical" to cover for some pretty far out ideas. Examples include Bill Gates, Arletty, the French economist, the editorial boards and producers of most media as well as most of the pertinent and even impertinent faculties of most major colleges. The most recent example - the plaintive cry, in scheduling the World Economic Forum in Davos, in 2021, for a "Reset" of world economic and government policies. Translation - the general adoption of their pet unpopular socialistic and post-capitalist policies for controlling us more under the cover of COVID.

Their greater threat comes from the fact that they are not accountable to anyone but themselves (and sometimes, in light of their lifestyles of unchecked capitalism, conspicuous consumption and garish carbon emissions, not even themselves). The "Fear Factor" therefore of being timorous about implementing or even proposing radical changes is non-existent (witness how much more socialist an ex-politician, even one who was supposed to be a conservative, becomes once they leave office). It is also harder to fight this element of the opposition as it is ever more exclusive in admitting or tolerating those of a truly different political attitude into or in their precincts and indeed have exiled many who have transgressed against their evermore detailed PC code.

How to fight them? Well, one way is to keep the pressure on the elected and remind them how dangerous it will be politically to go against the Consensus. We need to campaign for, organize for and ultimately run as candidates who will guard and build on the Consensus. But candidates can come and go and ask you to :"read their lips"!

That is why another method is to fight for our causes and to organize our own forums and that is historically at a great peak compared to other eras. Before the 1950's, there were no conservative magazines. Before the 1960's, there were no conservative politicians. Before the 1970's, there were no conservative thinktanks. Before the 1980's, there was no conservative radio and before the 1990's, no conservative TV. We now have a great network of all these elements on our side although still outnumbered by the Left, especially in academia and the media. Worse, all these too can be ephemeral and thus may not always guard against the Left's threat to the Consensus (witness the apostasy of the likes of Bolton, Crystal and Kasich).

The real answer is Insulation. No, I am not talking about installing asbestos around Donald Trump. I am saying that the Consensus has survived as long as it has because it has certain in-built conditions and developments many of which no one, including Reagan, could have predicted that have ensured we never go back to confiscatory taxes, nationalization, wage and price controls and other extreme regulation and even re-regulation. These include:

1. Low inflation. Ironically, the excuse the governments used for controls was due to a phenomenon they helped to stoke through profligate fiscal policy. The Great Moderation removed this issue and thus the premise for intervening in the first place. It never came back even as taxes were slashed which many of the same "experts" said would also ramp up inflation. It also has undermined the rationale for related reregulations (for example, when energy was deregulated, the price of oil and gas went down);

2. The coming of the Computer Age. This sector has been critical to the renovation of the Rustbelt economies, to prosperity and improvement of the standard of living generally and for the most part has never been broadly regulated. Indeed, it has only known the New Consensus economically. As long as this is the case for it and most every other sector that depends on it (which is now practically every sector and industry and activity), the New Consensus will abide with this massive ally;

3. The same can be said for Telecomms and Social Media (also like Computing, areas of the economy that arguably would not be what they are today or even exist at all but for the New Consensus). Our lives have been changed and liberated irretrievably and in a good way that will be hard if not impossible and painful for a state to undo (yes, I'm going to use the cliche - the GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE!);

4. The collapse of the Soviet Union and thus the end of a huge and pervasive moral, intellectual and even material support for the enemies of the New Consensus around the World;

5. The crushing of poverty, disease and starvation worldwide mainly sue to the capitalistic and innovative forces unleashed by the New Consensus. In turn, this has also ushered in an extended period of peace; and,

6. The lack of a world crisis that invites the so-called "resetting" of the Consensus. And no, the "Great Recession" and COVID and Climate Change did not and will not do it. They are all materially and existentially far less threatening than the Great Depression, the World Wars and the Cold War that were all used to one degree or another to justify the Old Consensus, that is state intervention. Deep down even the most publicly committed to trying to alter the Consensus know that these are only perceived threats at best that will not compel people to return to the Old Consensus that not only is proven not to work BUT does not even have a relevant application to whole parts of our lives today.

There are many more reasons for the "immunity"of the New Consensus to the "virus" of its' enemies efforts to kill it. But over all, while many of us long for the "Good Old Days" or rail at "Social Injustice" as if it were invented in 2001 or 2017, we still live lives that are incomparably better, safer and more enjoyable and agreeable than any we had before the new Consensus was built. That is why our politicians will always (except incrementally which must still be definitely fought hard) back off substantively changing it as long as we stand up to them and get the right people to protect the Consensus and the freedoms it has given us all.

In short, Reagan's warning, that we can lose in a generation the freedom and prosperity it took centuries to build, still holds. Complacency and not improving (for instance, deregulating MORE areas of the economy and real tax reform) is not an option for us no matter how comfortable we are.  But, as long as we remain diligent, we're never going to go back to truly "Big Government" anymore than we are going back to platform shoes, bellbottom pants and disco.