Keep our heads while others lose theirs
I suspect many Canadians share with me a sense of real bewilderment at the turn of world events. I have to confess that while I believed throughout the United States election campaign that Donald Trump had a chance of winning the presidency, I also felt there was at least a chance that the office itself would change him. That has proven to be an entirely false hope.
There has always been a sense of spectacle about politics. And our own prime minister understands showmanship as well as any political practitioner. But Canadians have come to realize that when it comes to the U.S. at this hour, we are truly bordering on the ridiculous. American politics has gone from the symbolic to the shambolic, but it is a shambles that can have entirely serious, and potentially disastrous, consequences, not just for the United States, but for the world.
There are certain fundamental principles of politics that are being dishonoured every day — the first is the rule of law, the second is the importance of social solidarity, the third is prudence, by which I mean not simply caution, but constantly assessing the consequences of our actions.
When these ideas are thrown to the winds, terrible things can happen. The major wars and conflagrations of our time are the consequence of discarding principles that are there to protect us from making fundamental mistakes. And the technology of war is such that the human consequences of these mistakes can be catastrophic.
The rule of law is there to remind us that no one is above the law (expressed many years ago as “no matter how high you be, the law is always above you”), that impartiality, due process, freedom of speech and assembly, the presumption of innocence, and the need to insist that power and authority be constantly subject to standards applied by an independent judiciary are at the very core of a just society.
Many states have accepted this principle as applying to their domestic politics, but it has proven a real struggle to extend the idea internationally. For many years Canada, along with many other countries, has tried to do just that, both in relation to international conflict and to international trade and commerce. These “many other countries” have included the United States, but today it is by no means clear that the president of the United States either understands or believes in the importance of the principle either at home or abroad.
Late last month, in a speech to a conference of police officials in New York, U.S. President Trump went out of his way to make it clear that he didn’t think the protection of the safety and well-being of people in custody was important, and that there was far too much coddling of bad guys going on.
His comments got a reaction on social media, including many police organizations making it clear that upholding the law and the presumption of innocence meant that they could not ignore the rights and dignity of accused people. But there were no doubt many others who shouted “right on!” Trump, like a true demagogue, was throwing red meat to his base.
In Canada, the debate on the decision by the Canadian government to settle the law suit brought by Omar Khadr has raised similar questions and feelings. Public opinion polling shows that most Canadians believe Omar Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier, and that Canada should have done more to seek his release from custody at Guantanamo. But the settlement amount itself was a surprise and unpopular, and Conservative leader Andrew Scheer insisted that he would have told the Supreme Court of Canada that “the Canadian government would never pay.” Fighting words, but hardly compatible with the rule of law. Believing they had found a sure fire political winner, his party then launched a fundraising campaign, and Conservative politicians took to the airwaves and newspapers in the U.S. to reinforce the argument.
While is it certainly true that no particular amount of money was prescribed by any Canadian court, it is also true that Khadr’s charter rights were breached by the government of Canada, and so damages would have to be paid. The rule of law often requires governments to do things that are politically unpopular. Public opinion at many times in our history has been a poor guide to the protection of rights.
Demagoguery is never a good thing, but we are living next door to a country whose leader revels in it every day. He has crossed the line from courting public opinion to indulging its worst instincts, and from love of country to insisting that all others are inferior. Trump’s tweets are a constant appeal to anger, resentment, quick and easy solutions, and personal abuse of those who oppose him.
His appointment and then dismissal of Andrew Scaramucci is a sure indication that this style will only intensify. That the administration is marked by incompetence as surely as it is by the shrill entreaties of a carnival barker should not lead any of us to sleep more soundly.
The second principle — the importance of solidarity — is equally at risk. The examples of this worldwide are legion. One of the largest and most devastating famines in Africa’s recent history is being met with international indifference. Our own government offers to match personal donations, as if to say “show us how much you care and we’ll follow along.”
The stateless wandering the world and the homeless wandering our streets reflect the cynical conclusion of governments of every stripe that the vast majority of their populations do not care enough, or are too worried about their own taxes, jobs, and personal security to want the politics of inclusiveness to be pushed too far.
The recent spectacle in the United States on health care is a case in point. The premise of Trumpthink is that those with insurance don’t care much about those without it, and many express the point that taking care of your own needs is an individual, and not a social, obligation. But the policies signed into law by president Obama ended the anomaly of the United States being the only industrialized country without broadly based health coverage.
The pooling of risk is an expression of solidarity, and we can only be grateful that Sen. John McCain was able to leave his hospital bed to join Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to join 48 Democrats to defeat the repeal of Obamacare. But the battle is far from over, as President Trump berates and belittles these who are loathe to see the number of uninsured grow by the millions.
When it comes to applying the principle of solidarity, we in Canada can’t wallow in complacency. Our public health-care plans don’t include drugs and dental on a universal basis, we spend far less than others on early childhood education and child care, and housing has become an orphan of public policy. What we owe each other, and how to get it done, remain aspirational.
The deep anger and frustration being expressed in Canada by Indigenous people and their leaders is yet another reflection of what happens when inclusiveness, and the steps to express it are either ignored or poorly implemented. The youth suicide epidemic — and that is what is has become — is the most tragic expression of hopelessness and despair imaginable. If the gap between promise and action grows, anger joins despair. This is truly the crisis of our time in Canada.
The abandonment of the third principle — prudence and forethought — is also fraught with consequences. The failure to think and act consequentially can be fatal. Nowhere is this clearer than what is happening on the Korean Peninsula. One of the basic concepts of strategic thinking is that both parties to a conflict fully understand the consequences of their actions, and the most likely outcomes of the game of chess they are playing.
But history is full of examples of people assuming, wrongly, that others would act differently in the face of bold decisions. President Obama is said to have advised his successor that no issue would be more difficult than North Korea.
One of the consequences of the Trump Spectacle is that there are so many diversions, tweets, and eruptions that it is impossible to know who in Washington or elsewhere is giving deep and serious thought to the potential steps that need to be taken, and the potential consequences that any might have.
One thing we know for sure is that public berating of China and Russia and “don’t cross that line or else” are counterproductive, and have been ineffective in changing North Korea’s behaviour. None of which is to say it is easy to know what will work. We are dealing with a brutal regime that is capable of irrational and self destructive behaviour. But it is never the answer to mimic that behaviour. That Donald Trump often shows the same characteristics is cold comfort.
As Canadians we need to do our best to keep our heads while others are losing theirs, and find a coherent voice to engage successfully with others. There has to be real substance in this engagement. President John F. Kennedy’s most famous book was Profiles in Courage. The world needs leadership that is more about courage and less about profile.