REALPOLITIK COMES TO OTTAWA

One of the leading figures of the Renaissance was Niccolo Machiavelli. A brilliant intellectual, he was a writer, poet, advisor to the powerful and a thinker. His seminal work "The Prince" is considered to be the founding treatise of the discipline of "political science." In it, Machiavelli outlined the qualities of the ideal political ruler. In subsequent years, "The Prince" has been examined in minute detail, which has left Machiavelli himself the subject of much debate. Was he a cold-hearted, bloody-minded operative or a true theorist who  delved into the human psyche, holding a mirror to us all ? Did he, in fact, have a greater understanding of the human spirit than anyone else ?

Perhaps the main point of Machiavelli's work is the concept of "realpolitik." This is the belief that any type of decision in politics should be based on the concept of pragmatism: it should be based on the realities of the time, on the realities of the situation a person is facing, and on workable or "doable" outcomes or solutions to that situation. Realpolitik is "getting things done", ignoring ideological or philosophical frills that may encumber or even prevent real or successful solutions from ever occurring. A practitioner of realpolitik is often seen as an evil being, one without the softer aspects of humanity: compassion, empathy, charity or even love. The term "Machiavellian" has come to mean someone to be feared, avoided, and hated.

The events of the past few weeks in Canadian politics has, for me, been a fascinating study of Machiavellianism and realpolitik. The resignations of Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott from the cabinet of Justin Trudeau has sent ripples throughout Canada, shaking the very foundations of Trudeau's government. Because of this, Wilson-Reybould and Philpott have been held up as shining examples of what political leaders should be: principled, altruistic and honest. They have been portrayed as everything, from victims of an overbearing male to crusading champions of women's rights and Indigenous purity. And, as a contrast, Trudeau has paid a heavy price in his reputation, his integrity and his ability to lead a government.

All of which is sheer poppycock, and complete balderdash. Consider the following:

In 1983, at the conclusion of some long-forgotten Constitutional conference, Bill Wilson, a chief of a British Columbia First Nation delivered some prophetic and significant remarks to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The video is widely available on youtube or in the CBC archives. Wilson told of his two children who were studying law and wanted to be Prime Minister some day. He revealed to the assembly that his kids were women and got suitable laughter and applause. Trudeau quipped that he'd "stick around until they were ready" to which Wilson hit back with (paraphrasing) they could be on a plane that evening. "A good exchange between two keen debaters," you might think. But I see more to it. If you look at the video ( and I urge you to do so ) you will notice that Wilson was not laughing, but instead fixed Trudeau in a death stare that would rival anything seen in a superhero movie. Wilson could barely disguise his dislike for Trudeau. And Trudeau would not look at Wilson after he made his "plane" response. There is palpable animus in this exchange.

My point ? The sins of the fathers have been visited on their children in the present day. Justin Trudeau has succeeded his father as PM and Wilson's daughter, Wilson-Reybould became Justice Minister and Attorney General in Justin's government. At first, the two seemed to work well together. Not now.

Wilson-Reybould has been described by some cabinet colleagues as being "difficult". Her sister described her, in an article in the Star, as the "go get 'em" one in the family, not at all quiet, but rather driven and ambitious. The sister used the "running of the bulls" in Pamplona, Spain, as an example of how much of an "action" person she was and is. Wilson-Reybould pulled the sister from the relative safety of their balcony onto the street to run with the bulls for a brief stretch. The sister had no intention of doing this, but Jody took charge and, well, it makes a good family story.These are all good qualities in anyone with designs on positions of responsibility and power. Machiavelli would have approved.

As a minister in Justin Trudeau's government, Wilson-Reybould was seen as a leader, occupying a senior portfolio. The fact that she was Indigenous didn't hurt her rising star status either. Trudeau earned praise for crafting a cabinet that was exactly half female, something not done in Canadian politics before, earning him praise as a male "feminist". This gave him a platform with which to tout several domestic and international initiatives benefiting women and girls around the world, raising Canada's international profile immensely. The praise went to Trudeau. His cabinet colleagues were seen as support only, doing his good work. Wilson-Reybould seemed to go into the shadows while other ministers, notable Chrystia Freeland and Jane Philpott ( more about her later ) took on tough tasks like foreign affairs and the "doctor-assisted death" initiatives. Wilson-Reybould could not have liked this.

This is where Machiavelli would fold his hands on his desk and lean forward closely to observe what happened next. Along came the SNC-Lavalin affair, wherein Trudeau, anxious to protect the company and keep jobs in his native Quebec, approached Justin Minister Wilson-Reybould several times about obtaining a "deferred prosecution agreement" ( perfectly legal ) in order for SNC-Lavalin to work its way out of potential criminal prosecution while co-operating with a federal investigation into prior activities concerning Libya and Ghadaffi's son. Wilson-Reybould, quite properly, refused to do so, citing conflict of interest with her position as Attorney-General. And this is where Machiavelli would've been most proud.

I maintain that Wilson-Reybould saw her chance to discredit Trudeau. When Trudeau moved her into another position, Minister of Veterans' Affairs, she saw this as a demotion. She published an unprecedented on-line essay on her experience and achievements as Justice Minister, instead of quietly accepting her new position, which is what she should've done. Then, scarcely a month after the new position change, she abruptly resigned. In the interim, the Globe and Mail published the story of possible political interference in the SNC-Lavalin affair, citing unnamed sources for the story. "Unnamed sources"? How far do we have to look?

As mentioned above, Wilson-Reybould's resignation, subsequent silence on the matter, only to be burst wide open with her damning testimony at the Justice Committee inquiry on the matter, have only served to raise her reputation, while putting Trudeau on the complete defensive. Mission accomplished? Not quite. Another two resignations followed: Gerald Butts, Trudeau's chief advisor and, strangely, Jane Philpott, a highly regarded cabinet minister, who had previously held the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. It must be pointed out that Philpott is not First Nations, but is considered to be a "good close friend" of Wilson-Reybould. Has the plot thickened yet?

As a final coda to all this, the CBC contacted Wilson-Reybould's father, the above-mentioned Bill Wilson, for his reaction. I urge all of you to look at this video on youtube or CBC archives. Mr. Wilson is getting on in years now, but has not lost any of his feistiness. Besides supporting and expressing pride in his daughter, as any good father would and should, Wilson launched on a slightly rambling and extremely emotional tirade against the "Trudeaus" ( note the plural ) and the shameful approach to Indigenous affairs by Canadians generally. It was based, of course, on truths and reality, but it was still slightly cringeworthy to watch and hear. And what did it have to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair? Or ethics in government ? Or altruism ? Absolutely nothing.

Which brings me to this. This entire sorry spectacle has nothing to do with principal, or ethics, or altruism, or honour. It has everything to do with power, influence and the attainment of both. Wilson-Reybould played every card in her hand. Her ethnicity played a huge role in this. She shares her father's frustration at the snail's pace with which improvements for Indigenous people moves. She has studied how to work within the "white man's" system ( Wilson's words, not mine) in order to bring about change. And then there's the issue of gender. Despite Trudeau's good words and deeds on the "feminist file", he has raised expectations among certain women very high. If he has not moved fast enough, then some women would like to see him removed and replaced with a woman at the top job in government. Would that be Wilson-Reybould herself ? Many on social media have suggested so. Certainly the Opposition ( led in a Machiavellian way by female Conservative members, largely Lisa Raitt ) have suggested that Trudeau has a "woman problem."

I counter by suggesting that some women in government have a "Trudeau" problem. History teaches us that most revolutions occur not when people are completely downtrodden, as is the common misconception, but rather when their expectations have been raised, even slightly: when things start to improve, people want more and they want the improvements to happen immediately. I submit to all readers that this is what has happened here.

There are many Machiavellian actors in this piece. Wilson-Reybould, her father and Jane Philpott have already been discussed. But Justin Trudeau exhibited Machiavellian traits as well. He sought to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin affair in order to placate the company, thus preserving Quebec jobs and, in doing so, raising his own profile. Imagine if he hadn't and SNC-Lavalin had made good on their threat ( they may yet do so ) to leave Canada for England, eliminating 9,000 jobs. Imagine the howls of protest from the nation and especially the Opposition for Trudeau not doing everything in his power to save Canadian jobs. So, he had to do this. Admittedly, it was inappropriate for him to put pressure on Wilson-Reybould to intervene, but it was not illegal. When Wilson-Reybould protested, Trudeau got her out of the hot seat portfolio and put her in Veterans' Affairs, which, as explained above, was seen by her as a demotion. And then there's the Opposition led by the vacuous and ineffective Andrew Scheer. Scheer must think that he'd died and gone to heaven with this gift from the political gods. He has been like a dog on a bone with this issue, which is his job as Leader of the Opposition. But the smirk on his face is obvious for all to see: he sees this as his opportunity, perhaps his one and only opportunity, to strike at Trudeau before the fall election. He has no policies, no traction with voters outside of Alberta or Saskatchewan, and, frankly, has the personality of wallpaper paste and the intellect of a cocker spaniel. And he could become Prime Minister of Canada because of Wilson-Reybould's ambition and drive.

Realpolitik. It's a tough game.

One final observation. In order to garner sympathy from all of us, Wilson-Reybould cited the enormous pressure she was under from the alpha male, Justin Trudeau, in this incident. It raised her anxiety and worry levels. Hmmm …. isn't that what realpolitik is all about ? Isn't that what being a leader, be it an Indigenous leader, a female leader, a political leader, or Prime Minister is all about ? Pressure? Perhaps the ends do, indeed, justify the means.

It's all so Machiavellian. It would make a great novel.

THE "SOCIALLY LIBERAL, FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE" MYTH.

There have been many times when I've engaged in healthy and vigorous debate with my friends. The topics are wide-reaching, but, more often than not, the discussions involve politics. My liberal friends and I partake in lively and mostly humourous Conservative-bashing, and I really enjoy these. My conservative friends and I, however, engage in more intense and often visceral discussions that eventually descend into argument. Sad to say, I find these rather stimulating as well, and I know my adversaries like to bait me and get me angry. But there are times, when we feel the debate temperature rising, that one or both of us decide to pull back and end the debate before hard feelings emerge. I often do this by saying "we'll agree to disagree" and that usually does it. But many of my conservative friends de-escalate with something like "well, I don't agree with everything that Trump/Ford/Harper/Kenney says because I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative."

I used to buy that sentence and nod my head and secretly thank them for ending what could've been a divisive debate. I thought that phrase, "socially liberal but fiscally conservative", was a reasonable position and that my friends were thoughtful and wise people.

I was conned.

What, exactly, does "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" mean? When its said quickly and in the heat of conversation, it sounds like a fair middle ground, a place where all of us can live in peace and harmony, doing the right thing and enjoying all the fruits of liberalism and conservatism. In reality, it's a non-sensical cop-out, a way of silencing an interlocuter and claiming a draw in the debate when the speaker is clearly losing.

"Socially liberal" implies a belief in all the qualities of a modern, progressive society. It implies that the believer is against things that seek to destroy us: racism, sexism, xenophobia, denial of climate change, and all kinds of inequality. The socially liberal person adheres to an agenda that could get Liberals, NDP or Greens elected. The socially liberal person believes in a better tomorrow and thinks of him/herself as being one of the "good guys" and might, when under observation, shake his/her head at the silliness of Trump or Ford.

"Fiscally conservative" implies a belief in being financially responsible. It suggests that one of the biggest problems in modern society is debt, corruption, and the stifling of the entrepreneurial spirit. The fiscally conservative person is particularly upset when his/her taxes are being squandered on wasteful things. As a result of this anger about taxes, the fiscal conservative is deeply distrustful of  big government, which he/she sees as a type of enemy. The fiscal conservative wants to reward the vision, hard work and risk-taking of those who are willing to do these,  and wants to punish those who, in their eyes, are slothful, profligate, or unfocussed in their financial vision.

One may ask "is it not possible to be both?" The answer has to be a resounding NO !!

The "social liberal, fiscal conservative" ( hereafter referred to as SLFC ) is a person who says all the right things about social justice …. until there's a price tag attached. Then, the liberalism is reigned in faster than a turtle head on a really cold day. The SLFC would be quite comfortable with sayings like, "of course I believe in equality … wait, you say there has to be affirmative action programmes to help disadvantaged people get ahead paid for by taxes? I'm out !! " Or something like, "of course I believe that climate change is real, but Canada doesn't contribute much to world pollution like China does, so these climate pricing schemes are just going to cost me money. No way do I support them." Or how about this one: " yeah, it's really sad to see all the suffering in the world, but why do my taxes have to go to help foreigners? Especially when we have so many poor people here at home! Wait, you want to raise my taxes to help people on First Nations reserves get drinkable water, or decent and clean housing? Nope, not on my dime !"  Or, finally, consider this line of "thinking." "Well, sure, the opioid crisis is a terrible thing, but I don't want one of those safe-injection sites near my neighbourhood. Who's going to pay for it, anyway?"

Some readers may be ready to have their heads explode after reading these. I challenge you to ask yourself these simple questions. Are my SLFC sentences unrealistic? Have you never heard people say things like them? Have you not said them yourself? Of course you have.

These sentences reflect a type of self-denial, a type of intellectual schizophrenia. Issues are often complex and endlessly nuanced. When we find ourselves embroiled in debates, we want to come off as an informed, intelligent and confident debaters. We don't want to seem to be simplistic or …. gasp … wrong. So we try to invent these positions that cover all the bases, that show us as being a person of reason or compassion, as well as possessing a cold intellect.

And it's a sham. You cannot be SLFC. Why? Because there's a limit to your liberalism or conservatism, that's why.

It's like being a "young senior" or a "free-will determinist". Or being sort of pregnant. Or kind of dead.

You're either a liberal or a conservative, with all the strengths and weaknesses, all the benefits and detriments, all the positives and all the negatives of both sides.

So, make up your mind … what are you?

i HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE !

Sixty years ago this past week, an event of far-reaching significance reached its climax. With the forces led by Che Guevera and Camilo Cienfuegos bearing down on the Cuban city of Santa Clara, victory was assured for the rebels. The three-year-long Cuban Revolution was over. Fulgencio Batista, the dictator ruling Cuba with an iron hand, fled on New Year's Eve, 1958, and the forces of Fidel Castro, along with his brother Raul, Che and Cienfuegos marched into Havana a few days later to establish a new government which has endured to this day.

Guevera is generally credited with coining the slogan that inspired the Revolution and remains one of the most oft-quoted phrases in modern history: "Hasta La Victoria Siempre." It stirred the rebels 60 years ago, and continues to urge modern Cubans to embrace the ideals of that Revolution from a distant age.

Any translation of a popular and significant phrase from a foreign language into English poses problems, but this simple phrase carries some interesting baggage with it. Loosely and literally translated, it means "until the victory, always." That's a bit awkward, but the best translation I've seen is this one: "onward to victory, always". Somehow, that sounds a bit more inspirational. It's certainly meant to be an exhortation for believers to work relentlessly to the final victory, which, when you think about it, is a necessity when participating in a revolution. Should the revolution fail, should it not accomplish its goals, then those who espouse the revolution would undoubtedly face terrible reprisals from the other side, even possible death. As Benjamin Franklin once famously declared during the doubt riddled American Revolution in the 1770's, "gentlemen, we must hang together, for if we fail, we shall surely hang separately."

For me, however, the Cuban phrase contains a uniquely human and tragically heroic quality. If the phrase is to be believed, a follower of the revolution must be always striving to achieve the victory that is necessary. Since the word "siempre" or "always" is included, it is implied that the struggle is eternal and that the victory will perpetually be out of reach, never attainable. Like some Cuban Sisyphus, the revolutionaries are condemned to be constantly fighting for this ideal, always getting close, but never quite getting there, struggling to move the revolutionary boulder up the slope almost to the top … only to see it roll back down to the bottom, whereupon they must trudge down, roll up their sleeves and try mightily once again to strive to the top … only to repeat the process into eternity.

Che, if he coined the phrase, was absolutely dead-on in his exhortation for Cuba. He must've known the awesome obstacles that the new-born Revolution would face in the years ahead, particularly when the United States chose to pay attention to the events of the Revolution and become involved. The victory at Santa Clara marked an end to the immediate struggle, to be sure. But Che must've known that the Americans would do everything in their immense power to try to sabotage the Revolution. He was right. And so, Cuban history from the end of 1958 to the present day has been that of constant struggle, strain, defeats, hardships and even misery. There have been victories too, but an honest Cuban would say that the three generations since the days of Fidel, Raul, Che, and Camilo have been tested in the crucible of suffering.

In may ways, though, the Cuban struggle is an acute example of the broader human struggle. We all are striving to some goal, some ideal: it may be a personal goal, as in the attainment of personal happiness or fulfillment, or a collective one, as in national greatness or general survival. It has always been thus and it will always continue to be so.

We are a strange species. We have the same physical needs as other animals. We are born, we need basic things to grow, we mature, we fight and clash with others, we dominate and then we decline, grow weak and die. For what ? What do we gain from this ? Simple survival of the species ?

Our history would suggest that there is more. We do more than basic survival. We create. We illuminate. We feel compassion. We achieve almost godly things. We strive for greatness, and sometimes we actually get there. But when we get the boulder to the top, we look over and see another mountain slope, with another boulder to push to the top. And we go. And we push that boulder. Why?

Because there is always the victory, waiting for us, beckoning us onward, always, inexorably onwards to gain it.

What else can we do ? Hasta la Victoria siempre !

THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

One of my personal conceits is that I write fairly well. I'm an amateur, to be sure, but I enjoy it. I've always been able to write: as a kid in school, I used to love "composition" class, when our teachers would give us a topic or hold up a picture and challenge us to make a story out of it. I could do this easily, and my stories were usually given high marks and were read before the class. It was a sort of identity for me: the kid who could write.

As I got older, I began to think about using my writing skills to further my education and perhaps follow a career. I started to think seriously about journalism as my future calling. When the time came, I applied to Western and Ryerson because both schools had well respected programmes in journalism. I went to both schools, with samples of my high school writing in hand, to be interviewed by faculty, tour the facilities and get as much information as I could. It ended up that I went to Western, but didn't follow journalism, choosing instead to study more academic areas and ultimately go into teaching. Oh well …

However, my interest in journalism has never waned. In many of my courses, I had units in journalism, believing firmly that an understanding of media, how it works and its importance in our society was something my young students should know. I also attempted, on several occasions, to launch a school newspaper as an extracurricular activity. It was one of the great thrills of my career to see, with the opening edition of one of the papers, the entire concourse of our school fall silent with students bent over copies of the paper. Later, with the advent of social media, the hard copy paper fell out of favour, despite our best efforts to publicize it and produce interesting reading.

When it's done well, journalism is a form of living history. It chronicles the times in which we live, and provides material for future historians to use as they attempt to understand us. Good journalism, and especially good writing, can do wonderful things for us. It can teach, of course. It can enlighten. It can entertain with its intelligence and discovery. And it can sway us, and make us think of things that we hadn't thought before. I always believed that good journalism is a jewel in the crown of our democratic society: we need independent, intelligent, objective reporting of events and people in order for us to become aware of what goes on in our locales, our country, and our world. Without good journalism, we would be living in complete vacuums, ignorant and dark creatures of fear and superstition.

When journalism is done badly, as it often is, it becomes either a bad joke in our eyes, or a pernicious tool for those who seek to control or manipulate us. It can be propaganda for demagogues and dictators, or an enabler of mindless and childish titillation. It can be a distraction from real and unpleasant issues which require immediate attention, benefitting only those who drive or profit from those unpleasant issues. It can be clumsy, unprofessional, intrusive and, in its worst iteration, a form of semi-pornographic entertainment. When this happens, people often lose respect for the honest journalists who continue to ply their trade with the same conviction as medieval monks on some wind-swept island among the barbarians they're trying to enlighten.

We now exist in a post-journalism world. Social media, in its many forms, is the main source of information for many people. The 24-hour news cycle constantly hammers us with images and slogans that become, after time, mind numbing. People shun paper copies of publications. We read long form copy less than ever. And, as a result, we think less. The open hostility to real journalism, most blatantly shown in the Trump administration, appeals to many people because these people don't want to think: to do so requires effort. They want to feel, to let emotion rule. And the easiest emotion to conjure is fear: the second easiest is anger. Together, these are potent forces for the corrupt and opportunistic to use. And this is exactly what's happening now.

We need good journalism now more than ever. If our democracy is to survive and flourish, we must be willing to read more, regardless the platform we choose to read. And we must think more. For these to happen, we need to encourage young people to choose journalism not just as a career, but as a calling, as sacred as a religious calling. It is democracy's only hope.

A MAN HEARS WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND DISREGARDS THE REST

You can learn a lot from your friends. I certainly do, every day of my life. And I'm grateful for this gift. Some of the things I learn are harsh and painful, exposing my weaknesses and faults. Some things are uplifting and inspiring, pushing me to be a better person. Other things are funny, creative and even whimsical. But I always assume that the lessons I learn are the truth, for the lessons come from friends, and I trust them.

Recently, I polled my friends on facebook on the issue of climate change. The question I posed was a simple one. I asked them if they thought the issue of climate change was real and serious. I now realize, thanks to one of my respondents, that I should've phrased the question better, and framed the issue around "anthrogenic", or human caused, climate change. I assumed, however, that most people, when they consider climate change in the modern context, would understand that we were talking about human caused climate change. I freely admit that I had a certain expectation as to the answers I would get.

I was pleasantly surprised at the response. More than 40 of my facebook friends took the time to respond. I was thinking of a possible response of around a dozen or so: this was a nice surprise. Forty of my friends represents about 10% of my total facebook friend count: of course, many of the 400+ people who are classified as friends are not frequent users of facebook, or are constant correspondents with me. Several of them are in foreign countries, and therefore may not understand the question. So the response was nice. The second thing that surprised me was the overwhelming answer of "yes" to my question. I expected "yes" would be the majority response, but the extent of the "yes" side was amazing. Only one person said "no", which is a fair and honourable response, and two others said "yes" with caveats. The rest said "yes" plainly, sometimes in capital letters, with exclamation marks, or other equally emphatic phrases. It was an education for sure.

The question phrased by one of my respondents was "where are you going with this?" Good question. Initially, I intended it for my own curiousity, to see if my views are consistent with other people's, and yes they are. But then I decided to blog this to try to put it all into some kind of perspective. No reader should be surprised by this.

Doug Ford has recently gone on a high-spirited campaign against the "carbon tax" that Ontario has originally planned to implement. The tax was to be part of an initiative that included cap and trade, which Ford earlier cancelled. Ford claims that a tax will be a strain on those who already "pay too much tax" or who are low-income earners. Ford also claims that a carbon tax would be a "job killer", scaring investors and companies out of Ontario. Ford also intends to challenge the federal government, which is about to implement a national "carbon price" across the nation, specifically targeting the provinces which do not have their own carbon price or tax: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick. "Coincidentally", those provinces have Conservative or conservative-leaning governments. Ford intends to make this a hot-button issue in all upcoming elections, specifically aiming at Justin Trudeau's Liberal federal government, with the hope of defeating Trudeau and placing Conservative Andrew Scheer as the new Prime Minister. It's a long game Ford is playing, and there are some personal ambitions of his own on view for all to see.

Ford's gambit flies in the face of empirical evidence on the benefits of a price on carbon. When cap and trade was in effect in Ontario ( in a partnership with Quebec and California ), it seemed to work and some 3 billion dollars of revenue was earned by the provincial government which was supposed to be put toward implementing other solutions to the carbon problem. International studies have shown that carbon "taxes" have significantly reduced emissions in certain places, have not "killed jobs", and have, in fact, created a new economic sector, the sustainable environmental economy. Nobel prizes in economics were awarded to those who studied and supported this thesis.

And, finally, opinion polls have indicated that the majority of Canadians support some type of carbon price. Here's where my little poll comes in. In my little corner of the cyber world, more than 40 people, to varying degrees, agree that climate change is real and serious. I did not ask them if they supported a carbon price. But if a problem is that significant and serious, obviously some solution must be sought.

To be fair, there may be other solutions to the issue of climate change. Nobody has "THE ANSWER". But it seems to me that what we have in front of us is a start. If polluters are forced to pay, and if polluting by all of us ( private citizens and large corporations ) is no longer free or convenient, we will be forced into more positive initiatives.

Taxes are, generally, regressive. It's money out of someone's pocket. Nobody likes them, me included. But they are necessary. We all know that. And so, we pay them, grumbling all the while. Fair enough.

Sooner or later, the international studies show, we have to stop talking and debating about climate change, and start to take action. There are those who refuse to accept this, but most of us realize that it's true: the time for climate action is now. We have no choice. It really is a matter of survival for us as a species and for the earth as a planet.

I hope the 40+ of you who answered my little poll agree with me on this. Grumble all you want. But pay the damned tax. And insist our leaders stop turning this into an election issue. It isn't. It's well past that. It's survival.

A MOST UNCIVIL WAR

In past years, I used to enjoy going on a long weekend with several good buddies to Brookline Michigan to watch NASCAR races. The weekend was largely an excuse to camp out with really good friends, drink far too much beer, eat delicious barbequed food ( expertly prepared and cooked by my buddy Rob, who missed his calling as a professional bbq pit master ), look at pretty girls, listen to good music, and … oh yes … watch some good racing. One of the strange activities for me was to watch, listen to and try to understand many of the NASCAR fans, who were, to say the least, about as different from me and my view of the world as chalk and cheese. A way to pass some time was to stroll among the myriad souvenir vendors, who hawked almost anything with a NASCAR logo on it. Actually,  NASCAR was not necessarily the most popular logo available: more items had Confederate flags and slogans on them than anything else. It became more apparent, as the years went by, that I hadn't just crossed a border into the neighbouring state of Michigan: I had actually travelled into a different universe that was based in a different time, well established in the past. Michigan is a northern state, but the denizens of this environment were as foreign to us as if we had journeyed to Mars.

Most of the t-shirts and other paraphernalia touted a belief that "the South would rise again." This usually had a Confederate flag in the background and some kind of rebel figure, often a skeleton, rising up from a desolation, brandishing a sword or a civil war-era musket. The skull would have a grim expression ( I suppose most skulls do!) and often a bandage on the forehead with faint traces of blood. The message was unmistakable: the previous civil war was merely a lost battle, and that southern grit and determination combined with courage and a will to fight into eternity would ensure complete and utter victory some day. Other t-shirts were not even as subtle as that. Some would feature slogans about how "history will be vindicated", a veiled reference to the notion that the old southern attitudes to human rights, race relations, gender relations, and faith in the old religion would some day be returned to their positions of prominence. I kept telling myself, as I walked through the vendor area, that I was reading too much into it, that this was just harmless redneck fun. But as I listened closely, and conversed with these rednecks during the Obama presidency, and the rise of equality in race, gender, age and ethnicity, I was hearing the true beliefs of many of these people: that the current model of society was unacceptable to them, that there would be a type of semi-biblical reckoning, and that, indeed, the "south would rise again."

It is difficult to say for sure when society became so polarized and disunited: some would suggest it's a phenomenon of the Trump era; others would say it goes further back to the formation of the Tea Party as a more radical branch of the Republicans; others might even suggest it goes further back into the 90's, with the advent of the so-called "Common Sense Revolution" that began in middle America and found its strongest voice in Mike Harris' Ontario; still others can trace the origins of this polarization to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the prime ministership of Margaret Thatcher. It may go even further back to the creation of the "welfare state" in 1930's America under FDR or the implementation of the Beveridge Report in post-war Britain.

Regardless, we find ourselves today mired in a type of tribalism that features the strange aspect of "identity politics", where people now find themselves in one camp or another, with no chance or even no willingness to see the other side or to hear the other ways of doing things. We hear phrases on social media that urge us to "share this" if you agree that so-and-so is an idiot hell-bent in destroying the world as we know it. We are told that we live in "bubbles", which suggest some kind of artificial existence that acknowledges only things we like or want to hear. We are confronted with the phrase "tone-deaf" when opponents refuse to hear our own arguments, but cling to a belief that we ourselves are open to all ideas and thought. One side wants to "lock her up", while the other side claims an association of victimhood by saying "me too" or "black lives matter."

The rhetoric is so intense, so vitriolic, so loud and so unaccepting that there is only one conclusion to be reached about the current state of society: we are at war with our fellow citizens, and the war is getting ugly and so entrenched that an end is not in sight. Consider the following random examples of current trends:

1) Britain is still mired in an almost existential tussle over Brexit. The vote is now two years behind us. Yet the negotiations to bring about the separation proceed at a snail's pace, with the uncertainty weighing down both economies. British people are still unsure what they actually did two years ago and many are hoping somehow that they could get a "do over" because they are so overwhelmed at the enormity of it all. The original vote pitted Briton against Briton and it split down largely rural vs urban, London vs the rest of the country, old vs young, England vs Scotland lines. And, make no mistake, the key issue was not trade or general economics: it was immigration, and who is "let in" and who is "kept out." In modern times, Britain has never been more divided.

2) The Trump era in the United States, from his campaign for president to the present day. There is so much to unpack here, it would take too much time to recap. The most recent battle, the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court of the United States, is a good example of the divide the nation is in. But it is in the President himself, his words, his actions, his style, his policies and his complete disregard for civil behavior that endears him to so many Americans who would probably be right at home wandering through the NASCAR vendors' area with me and my equally shocked friends. Much more could be said here.

3) The rise of modern Conservatism in Canada. Since the 1990's, Canada has seen its own variety of Tea Party populism rise to power. Modern Canadian Conservatism, embodied by such people as Stephen Harper, Preston Manning, Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Jason Kenney, Rob and Doug Ford, Tony Clement, Andrew Scheer and many others, has its roots in evangelical Christianity, rural conservatism, a pro-business agenda, and skepticism in anything scientific, progressive, multicultural or inclusive, which is seen by the right as threatening to their simple, honest and time-tested belief system. The efforts of Doug Ford, current premier of Ontario, and Jason Kenney, possible premier of Alberta, is a naked attempt to undermine the federal government of Justin Trudeau, which they see as a complete and utter failure, despite the public record of some accomplishments by Trudeau. Jurisdiction and propriety do not seem to matter to these right wing leaders and their words and actions, fanned by populist media such as the Sun newspapers and screed-laced on-line sources like Rebel Media, are red meat to their followers.

4) The rise of right-wing, extreme populism in Europe, specifically in Turkey, Poland, Italy, Russia and most interestingly in Ukraine shows a willingness of people to accept simple, phrase-based slogans as truth. In Ukraine, the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution has given rise to groups like Svoboda and s14, which are thinly disguised neo-Nazi groups that challenge the authority of the central government and its efforts to settle the nation down and wage a sensible struggle against pro-Russian aggression in the east of the country and in the Crimean Peninsula. These situations bear watching.

It has always been a truism that "we live in challenging times." No era in history has been without its difficulties and upheavals. But the current situation and all the attendant issues ( climate change, environmental management,  economic disparity, mental health, rampant technology, and relationships between genders, races, ethnicities, belief systems etc. ) can never be solved until we have declared a truce between the factions that are fighting this civil war of ideology.

There is little hope of such a truce ever happening. Instead, we are locked into an ideological war of attrition comparable to the idiocy of trench warfare in World War One. We hope to out-shout the other side, come up with more clever and biting memes on social media, and rally the vote against the hordes on the other side. Our disagreements are evolving into visceral hatred. Peace will only come, it seems, with the utter destruction of the other side.

The south will not rise again. There will only be a ghastly unacceptance of anyone who is against your way of thinking. God help us all.

THE POLITICS OF CHAOS

Doug Ford has been Premier of Ontario for less than four months, but in that time, he has succeeded in turning the political climate in the province from the usual turbulent back and forth of partisan politics into an absolute maelstrom of uncertainty and brinksmanship. His plan to gut the City Council of Toronto has ruffled more than a few feathers, has inspired a court petition which won in Ontario Superior Court, only to be overturned by Ford's use of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the so-called "Notwithstanding Clause".

Since then, Ontario and indeed all of Canada has been plunged into a type of chaos not seen in recent years. Ford's heavy-handed move has forced a re-examination of the powers set out in various sections of the Constitution. Many former leaders, both liberal and conservative have weighed in and stated that the use of Section 33 was inappropriate, although completely legal.

Now, there is mounting pressure on Justin Trudeau to invoke the seldom used Sections 55 and 56 of the Constitution Act to disallow any provincial legislation Ford may pass regarding the size and format of the Toronto City Council. Others are crying foul, that Trudeau has no such power, or would be unwise to use it. In point of fact, the power to disallow provincial legislation is real and has been used several times in Canada's history. Most famously, the governments of R.B. Bennett and Mackenzie King invoked the power to disallow several attempts by William Aberhardt, the premier of Alberta, to reform the banking and other economic institutions during the 1930's. Since then, most political thinkers have come to the conclusion that the power of disallowance is dormant: perhaps that is true, but it not extinct. It has not been used since. It is still there in black and white, ready to be dusted off to plunge us even further into political chaos.

Whether Ford or Trudeau go ahead with their political "nuclear" options is impossible to predict at this time. Whether they even should attempt these things is a discussion for water coolers, coffee shops, bars and dinner tables. The big question should be this: why are they doing this in the first place?

The answer lies in the time tested Conservative practice of "creating a crisis." I say it's a Conservative practice because I honestly cannot think of an equivalent Liberal or NDP practice. Creating a Crisis is used by Conservatives to try to get the citizenry angry at the established ways of doing things in order to be given tacit permission to change the ways of doing things in their favour. In this case, Ford's personal vendetta against Toronto City Council is motivating him to act this way. Don't like City Council? Declare it to be "dysfunctional" and then throw a huge wrench into the scheduled electoral process, throwing everything and everyone into confusion, and stand back and say that he is the only one to fix "the problem." The only flaw in that reasoning is this: most people know that there was no problem in the first place and the confusion is only flowing from the Ford government.

There is a precedent. In the 1990's in Ontario, the Conservative government was led by a failed teacher named Mike Harris. Whatever the reasons for him leaving the profession, he developed a severe animus towards it. When he achieved power, he decided to try to break teacher unions, radically change the way teachers did their jobs, curtail the power of school boards, and, generally, throw everything into a boiling soup of controversy. His Ministers of Education, John Snobelin and Dave Johnson, knew nothing about teaching, but certainly knew how to turn public opinion against teachers and launched a series of bills and regulations against the profession. What followed was the "political protest" of teachers in the late 90's. The government eventually won the battle, but the antagonism and bad feelings THEY created have lasted to this day. And, ultimately, teachers won the war. Harris and his successor, Ernie Eves, were turfed out of power and a prolonged period of relative peace returned under Liberal governments.

Now, the Conservatives are back and they are loaded for bear. They have, in their short time in office, thrown everything into chaos. They are picking fights. They are creating chaos. They are making it up as they go along, with no clear mandate from the electorate to do these things.  They despise the federal Liberals simply because the Liberals have been governing largely successfully with a relatively progressive agenda and approach. The provincial Tories hate this and want the same fate to befall the Trudeau Liberals as befell the Kathleen Wynne Liberals . Make no mistake, this whole sorry incident is a veiled challenge to Trudeau to intervene and deploy his own version of a political "nuclear bomb." Deep down, Ford must realize that his Conservatives were put in power simply because people no longer liked the Liberals: Wynne's government was tired and out of ideas. Fair enough. But the voters weren't actually voting in favour of anything Ford's Conservatives offered, because there was no platform to examine. Voters were simply in the mood for change. Ford hopes that, if Trudeau intervenes, he can successfully battle a "bully" federal government which is trying to tell Ontario what to do. He hopes it will make him look good and Trudeau, an outsider from Quebec, look bad. It's a terrible gamble on Ford's part and it will only ruin any chance of federal-provincial co-operation. And it might work.

But, as with Harris and Eves, Ford would be well advised to remember that these chaos-induced successes of his are to be short-lived and will backfire on him.

Chaos, like karma, is a bitch.