Thoughts on the US Election

This is going to be an unorganized rip through my thoughts on the US election.

Since the winner was a narcissist, I will begin with some ego-aggrandizement of my own. I predicted (not here, but on facebook) that Donald Trump would win the election, while losing the popular vote by over a million. The first thought is blatantly true (I had no idea he would win so much, though), while it appears the second thought may come true soon. Also, and this I felt essential, voter turnout was much, much lower than in 2012. Isn't it amusing to know Mitt Romney got more votes than Clinton?

Nonetheless, my thoughts are certainly with the protesters. It's hard to defend a man being elected in such a dubious way, and clearly the electoral college needs to be abolished. Get working on a constitutional amendment, now.

My other thought concerns the importance of messaging during an election. Here I will draw comparisons to the last two elections I voted in: Canada's last October, and Alberta's in April, 2015. I really think Hillary Clinton suffered for lack of a message; when during her concession speech, she said, "this was never about me," I had to laugh. Your election slogan was "I'm with her!" and beyond that, she had no ideas about the shape of things to come, just that she had more experience than Trump (which isn't hard. Arguably, so do I - at least I was in an actual military).

Experience can be good or bad. In Clinton's case, unfortunately, her experience resonated with Americans as being of the negative sort. It is ok to be sceptical of "experience" being a primary factor in hiring a politician anyway. While Americans wondered just who she owed debts to, I think historically to the disastrous governments of Lloyd George after WW1 and Winston Churchill in the 1950s. Experience isn't everything. Canada has enjoyed a relatively successful history of experienced leadership. If a Prime Minister served longer than two terms in office, they seem to do a good enough job to earn a place on our money.

Two-terms (8-9 years) seems to be a big barrier, especially to Conservatives, to break. Borden needed to leave office, having nearly destroyed the country (and conveniently fallen in with the British establishment). Mulroney resigned as the most unpopular Prime Minister ever, and last year, Stephen Harper went down to colossal defeat. With his cabinet members abandoning ship, Harper still charged into the election believing his experience alone would vanquish his rivals.

When the Liberals swept Atlantic Canada, I was surprised only that the NDP didn't win a seat. Having family from there, and keeping track of their affairs, it did not shock me that they universally rejected a party that patronised and insulted them. My neighbours here in Alberta, on the other hand, wondered just how dumb they could be. I hear echoes of this discourse in the aftermath of the American election.

Harper's record, outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan was pretty shit, and he should have known it. Those two provinces, insulated by oil economies, survived Harper's time as PM as the only two which enjoyed any real growth. His stewardship of the rest of the country was undeniably worse. British Columbia saw it's average annual income drop year after year. Economic decline in the rest of Canada was concealed by blowing up the housing market to titanic proportions. Now the country is worse off than the USA in 2007-2008, and the new Prime Minister is doing a great deal to try and diffuse it. So, campaigning on experience when most of the country hates you we must admit is a poor formula. That the Clinton and Harper campaigns couldn't believe the facts must point to a great amount of conceit in both groups.

As a last word on messaging, I would like to compare the "surprise" NDP government of Alberta to that of the perennial heirs-apparent, the Wild Rose Party. Notley's victory in April 2015 is, depending on your point of view, intensely correlated to the fact that she had a positive message that resonated with the province. The late Mr. Prentice was eternally trying to remove his foot from his mouth, and most importantly, the Wild Rose Party, didn't have a message for Albertans. Who can forget the debate, when Brian Jean successfully imitated a medieval monk with his mantra of "no new taxes." The NDP won because in April 2015, they appeared to be the only option.

So Donald Trump won, too. He acknowledged there was a problem in the way the USA was doing things. The people who had suffered from decades of de-industrialization and mergers and downsizing who spoke up and handed him power. This possibility was always present; it was the failure of the Democrats, and pollsters, and media, that they ignored the data they did not welcome.

Will they learn from this? Not by the looks of it.

Thanks for reading.

Book Review: Notley Nation

Notley Nation
By Donald Braid and Sydney Sharpe; Dundurn Books, 2016

As you might have guessed by now, I come from a very political family, and I have spent most of the last 20 years in Alberta. I returned to this province in 2010 - coincidentally the same year one may as well take as the starting point in the author's argument: that the successes of Justin Trudeau, Rachel Notley, and Naheed Nenshi all reflect the growing strength of a younger, more urban and more progressive Alberta, and Canada at large.

Accordingly, as someone who has been in Calgary long enough to remember the mayoral election of 2010 (and voted in it), much of the book is hardly a surprise. Of the 10 chapters, 9 are basically historical, while one is analytical. Therefore I feel the book is most valuable to the Canadians living outside of Alberta.

As a historical account, the book serves fairly well in taking a blow by blow approach to the decline of the Progressive Conservative Association, and the rise of Rachel Notley and the NDP. The coverage of events is a good deal more fair than the portrayal one would receive in Canada's newspapers - ironically, as Braid continues to be a reporter for the Calgary Herald/Sun/National Post. Braid and Sharpe do a wonderful job illustrating the comprehensive decline of the PCAA's relationship with the people of Alberta. It wasn't just that they were doing a bad job governing; it becomes quite clear the "association" no longer gave a hoot about its membership - only corporations. Truly, the impression one gathers is of a highly Corporatist political body.

As someone too young to know Premiers Lougheed or Getty, the historical diversions about these men is welcome. A standout chapter, though, is the story of Grant Notley, "the Social Conscience of Alberta," as a posthumous biography labelled him, and the upbringing of his daughter, the future Premier of Alberta. Their story is amazing in terms of their hardwork, dedication, and values.

The real hit in the book, however, is the unfortunately titled chapter, "Math is Hard," the analytical chapter discussing the changing role of women in politics, and just how important it is. This chapter was very illuminating to me, and served to impress on me how important gender representation truly is.

The only downside to the book is that Braid and Sharpe are occasionally too gentle on some of their subjects. In the aforementioned chapter, the authors provide a very good explanation for the terroristic internet traffic coming from Alberta's far right. However, they don't go far enough to discuss the obvious criminality and insanity of much of the content. I feel it worth noting just how frequently the female members of Notley's government have received death threats. They only mention one, and an early one at that.

Another weakness is their discussion of the media environment in Alberta; clearly this would be a conflict of interest for Braid, as he still works in it, but no story of the Alberta NDP government is complete without exploring the extremely hostile media environment they exist within. Braid himself is one of the few remaining voices of reason and decency within the mainstream media here - and his realistic and reasonable treatment of the economy and Oil business in Alberta will no doubt drive many readers crazy.

In sum, the book is a solid 4/5 - at least to me. If you happen to be an interested outsider, this is probably the best account yet of what has happened in Alberta since the retirement of Ralph Klein.

Thanks for reading.

American elections are a mess.

I think it's very fair to say that any illusions we had as to the efficacy and fairness of American elections has been dispelled by the nonsense of the past several years. Clearly, there is a systemic problem with American democracy that they will have to address if they wish to hold on to whatever reputation they have left. It is very difficult to think of any other democratic system where such unpopular candidates remain viable - no less both of them. However, this is what they've got. It's also what they've got to change.

Mercifully, the Americans do possess an example of how to run elections right: Alberta.

First of all, all American states should switch over to non-partisan electoral commissions. Certainly these are not perfect, but in comparison to many American jurisdictions, the Canadian experience is a beacon of light. The issues with gerrymandering and voting station irregularities need to be addressed if the Americans wish to maintain the notion that their system is legitimate, and most of their issues can be linked directly to partisan interference.

A second area worth examining is the elimination of corporate donations from elections - and putting caps on personal donations, as Alberta is currently considering. Obviously this would require a constitutional amendment to overcome the infamous ruling of the Supreme Court, but this is being worked upon. The results of such a decision are likely to be as startling to Americans as they have been to Albertans. To see a single political party lose 99% of its donations, as has happened to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, is a shocking expose of corporate power and influence. Bereft of such funding, it is interesting to ponder what form the Republicans and Democrats would turn into.

A third area of necessity is the abolition of the Electoral College. In spite of his momentum, I believe it is impossible that Donald Trump could win the popular vote; but, I feel a victory through the electoral college, a la George Bush 2000, is becoming increasingly possible. I think most Americans would admit that this system does not make much, or indeed any sense. Nonetheless, one can see the relevancy of the electoral college to the distortion of elections. It is difficult to think how the Republicans could have been viable for the past 25 years without the college. Skewering results through this ancient manipulation has only served to keep the Republicans stuck in a losing mindset. As with example 2, it is interesting to ponder the shape the Republicans would have taken if they had to change for the electorate - rather than manipulate the electorate to themselves.

The Americans will still have some fundamental issues with their democracy, largely stemming from the institutional stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have over their system. However, with these three reforms, inevitably the American democracy would come to better reflect their own population's wishes, and in turn the more successful democracies to their north.

Thanks for reading.