Almost exactly 2000 years ago, a young man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.
We still do not appear to have learned that lesson, though far too many take pride in giving it lip service.
British humour is older than we might think.
I just stumbled upon an article about the Smithfield Decretals. The damn thing is a volume of medieval Catholic canon law, a collection of decrees by Pope Gregory IX from the year 1230. In other words, medieval legalese, probably boring like hell.
But the illustrations in this particular copy are another thing altogether.
Let’s just say that I finally understand where the idea of the the killer Rabbit of Caerbannog came from, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Er… Happy Easter, I think?
A few weeks ago, an opinion piece appeared in The Globe and Mail, advocating Canada to become a nuclear state. A follow-on article was also offered by Bloomberg, discussing the same thing.
Midjourney’s depiction of a hypothetical Canadian nuclear test.
Absurd or not, Canada is in a precarious position. It is a very large country (second only to Russia), sandwiched between Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America. It is underpopulated, but rich in much-coveted natural resources. In other words, a prime target in a future resource war.
On the other hand, Canada is also one of the original nuclear states, so to speak. Much of the research of the British “tube alloys” project took place here, research that began before the Manhattan Project. A project in which Canadian scientists played a role, and Canadian raw materials were used. Canada also has a vibrant nuclear industry. Long story short, if Canada chooses to go nuclear, it has everything required to do so, over a time scale of a few years, tops, possibly less.
Of course it would mean violating the non-proliferation treaty. And a nuclear capability also requires suitable delivery systems, such as missiles or aircraft. Even so, I think it is an investment Canada should seriously consider, before it is too late. The actual future alternatives may be far worse than Trump’s “proposal” to turn our country into the “51st state”.
Today was the 80th anniversary of a memorable, unique, solemn event that took place in the Pacific ocean, during the waning months of World War 2.
A kamikaze pilot attacked an American warship, the USS Missouri, during the Battle of Okinawa. The attack was ultimately not successful: the damage caused was negligible, with only minor injuries among the crew. The kamikaze pilot died.
However, the pilot’s remains were recovered. And the next day, on the captain’s orders, the pilot — believed to be a young Japanese man, Setsuo Ishino, a petty officer 2nd class in a flight training program — was buried at sea with full military honors, which even included a makeshift Japanese flag.
(U.S. National Archives photo no. 80-G-315823 via AP)
This ceremony took place despite the fact that many of the Missouri’s crew had good reasons to despise the Japanese. The captain himself lost a close relative in battle earlier in the war.
Yet… they chose to do this anyway. Why? Simple, really: because they knew it was the right thing to do. And it was this attitude by the United States of America that made the subsequent 80 years, this unprecedented (granted, imperfect, but still unprecedented) period of peace and prosperity in which we live, which is sometimes rightfully called Pax Americana, possible.
Can we have this America back, please? An America that is generous, brave, courageous, fundamentally decent? As opposed to an America that is governed by grievance, petty resentments, nativism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, outright bigotry?
And no, I do not have any illusions about 1940s America. It was a society that, in absolute terms, was far more racist, far more bigoted than the America of today. But it was heading in the right direction, and led the way for the whole world to follow towards that famed “shining city on the hill.” A city that, it seems, is rapidly becoming a ghost town nowadays.
The other day, Elon Musk’s Grok kindly drew a plot for me. After it estimated (understandably crudely, since the data are inconsistent/unreliable) the percentage of global wealth owned by the top 1%, I asked it to create an diagram for inclusion in Web pages. Well, here it is, though converted to a PNG for easier sharing:
What is the significance, you might wonder? Simple. Look at the beginning, the early 20th century. Rising inequality, resulting in well-known upheavals: a world war, revolutions everywhere, the rise of totalitarianism, another world war.
But then, inequality plummeted. Not only that, it stayed low for decades. Precisely the decades of Pax Americana, the peaceful world of the Cold War, a world with two superpowers, yet a world that was mostly defined by the rules-based, liberal democratic world order imposed by the United States of America.
It all began to unravel in the late 1990s. Since then, inequality has been rising at a rate probably faster than the rate that characterized America’s Gilded Age in the late 19th century.
We know what happened the last time the world went down that road.
I could not resist answering a Quora question about Trump and Ukraine: Trump wants a quick end to Russia’s war. How do you feel about his withdrawal of military aid to Ukraine, and what effect that will have on Putin’s willingness to come to the negotiating table?
For a brief moment, allow me to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had the purest of intentions in his heart, that he was doing everything he was doing out of compassion, out of concern and a sense of responsibility, trying to end the bloodshed, the senseless war.
He won’t. There is a meme that has been very popular lately, and with good reason, recalling another instance when a similar choice was made:
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned triumphantly on September 30, 1938, from the Munich conference, where he agreed to Herr Hitler’s demands to compel Czechoslovakia to cede critical territory to Germany, and received assurances from the German chancellor that yes, this means peace in Europe. Chamberlain proudly waved the signed agreement as he was disembarking his aeroplane: “Peace for our times,” he proclaimed, cheered by many, with the notable exception of the “warmongering” Winston Churchill.
Germany attacked Poland almost exactly 11 months later, on September 1, 1939. (Chamberlain ultimately resigned the next year. Winston “not wearing a suit” Churchill became Britain’s wartime leader, a Prime Minister who guided his country through its “darkest hour” to victory — a victory made possible, in part, by unwavering help from an America that was not led by appeasers but by true leaders who fully understood the causes and consequences of Hitler’s actions.)
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
It’s usually my blog entries that I sometimes repost on social media. This time, I felt compelled to do the opposite.
A news bulletin from 1941:
Dateline: December 22, 1941
Headline: “Roosevelt Rebukes Churchill in Surprising White House Exchange”
Subhead: President, Urged by VP Wallace, Criticizes Britain’s ‘Perpetual War Mindset’**WASHINGTON, Dec. 22—**In a startling departure from the warm camaraderie many expected, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stunned onlookers yesterday when he sharply criticized Prime Minister Winston Churchill for what he termed Britain’s “single-minded pursuit of endless war” with Nazi Germany. The exchange occurred in full view of reporters and advisors in the White House’s East Room, overshadowing the Prime Minister’s long-anticipated holiday visit just weeks after the United States formally entered the conflict.
President Roosevelt, known for his measured tone and deft diplomacy, spoke with uncharacteristic sternness as he confronted Mr. Churchill on the question of a negotiated settlement with Adolf Hitler. “We appreciate your fight against tyranny,” he began, “but how many American resources must we ship across the Atlantic before you even consider exploring peace? Perhaps the endless request for aid should be matched by real efforts to end the bloodshed.”
Standing beside Mr. Roosevelt, Vice President Henry A. Wallace—long regarded as an idealistic and forward-thinking progressive—nodded vigorously. “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister,” Mr. Wallace interjected. “We believe in defeating fascism, but not at the cost of blindly prolonging war. If there is any path to ceasefire, we owe it to our people to pursue it without hesitation.”
Mr. Churchill, widely admired for his unwavering resolve and famed “We shall never surrender” rhetoric, appeared momentarily at a loss for words. Regaining his composure, he responded with calm precision: “A ceasefire with the likes of Herr Hitler is not truly a path to peace—it is a path to subjugation. Britain will not pause in this struggle so long as the Nazi threat looms over free nations.”
The tension in the East Room was palpable. Cabinet members and military officials looked on, many exchanging uneasy glances. Within the administration, few expected such a public admonition; Secretary of State Cordell Hull was notably tight-lipped, managing only a terse statement to the press: “The United States government is committed to a swift and just end to this war. How that goal is reached is, of course, a matter of urgent discussion.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, typically in lockstep with the President, seemed visibly uncomfortable with the scolding tone. “Solidarity with our allies has never been more vital,” he told reporters in the corridor afterward. “We must stand united in the face of the Axis threat.”
Yet, there remains support in some quarters for the President’s sharp words. A portion of America’s still-influential isolationist movement hailed the call for a ceasefire as “prudent” and “sensible.” Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D-Mont.) praised what he perceived as White House caution: “If Britain will not explore every option to avoid further expansion of this conflict, we have a right to question whether our resources—and our young men—should be committed.”
Political analysts worry that Mr. Roosevelt’s broadside could sow discord at a moment when international cooperation is paramount. Even so, official accounts indicate that behind the scenes, personal rapport between the two leaders remains intact—if badly rattled. The Prime Minister is slated to spend Christmas in Washington, a visit now fraught with heightened significance. Whether President Roosevelt’s critique signals a genuine shift in war policy or merely a dramatic flourish to appease lingering isolationist sentiment remains to be seen.
For the moment, this extraordinary public dispute leaves allied unity on uncertain footing, casting a shadow over what was to be a triumphant demonstration of solidarity in a moment of global crisis.
Editor’s Note: This report is part of our continuing coverage of the first official wartime meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. For daily dispatches and analyses from our Washington bureau, follow our “Road to Victory” series in print and via radio bulletins.
This, of course, never happened. The above bulletin was composed by ChatGPT. But imagine for a moment if Roosevelt had treated Britain’s wartime Prime Minister this way. On top of it all, also scolding Churchill, calling him a dictator, for his failure to hold elections (Britain had no elections between 1935 and 1945.) Contemplate the world we’d live in if the United Kingdom was abandoned by its ally, forced to fight against Hitler’s tyranny on its own.
Because this is the future that is foreshadowed by what took place in the Oval Office today, on February 28, 2025.
To all who believe that concerns about Trump’s rapid actions — from his dismantling of the US government, following the Project 2025 playbook with the help of Elon Musk to his threats to annex Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal or his attempt to play a much greedier, more corrupt version of Chamberlain in a peace settlement forced upon Ukraine — are not to be taken seriously, here is a cautionary tale, in the form of an editorial from the February 2, 1933 issue of Der Israelit, a leading voice of German Jewry at the time (English translation below):
Die neue Lage
Der Israelit, Heft 5, 02.02.1933
Das Kabinett Hitler, das sich am Montag Mittag in Berlin etabliert hat, bedeutet eine schwere stimmungsmäßige Belastung der ganzen deutschen Judenheit, ja, darüber hinaus, aller der Kreise, die in der Ueberspitzung des nationalistischen Rassen-Fanatismus unserer Tage ein Hemmnis auf dem Wege menschlicher Besittung und weltgeschichtlichen Fortschritts erblicken.
Zwar sind wir keineswegs der Meinung, daß Herr Hitler und seine Freunde, einmal in den Besitz der lange erstrebten Macht gelangt, nun etwa nach dem Rezept des „Angriff“ oder des „Völkischen Beobachters“ vorgehn und kurzer Hand die deutschen Juden ihrer verfassungsmäßigen Rechte entkleiden, sie in ein Rassen-Ghetto sperren oder den Raub- und Mord-Instinkten des Pöbels preisgeben werden. Das können sie nicht nur nicht, weil ihre Macht ja durch eine ganze Reihe anderer Machtfaktoren vom Reichspräsidenten bis zu den Nachbarparteien, beschränkt ist, sondern sie wollen es sicherlich auch gar nicht; denn die ganze Atmosphäre auf der Höhe einer europäischen Weltmacht, die ja mitten im Konzert der Kulturvölker stehn und bleiben will, und dazu das Bewußtsein, in der Wilhelmstraße nun der Notwendigkeit des demagogischen Werbens um den dröhnenden Beifall turbulenter Volksversammlungen bis auf weiteres überhoben zu sein, ist der ethischen Besinnung auf das bessere Selbst günstiger als die bisherige Oppositionsstellung. Den Mitkämpfern von gestern, den Parteifreunden, vermag der neue preußische Innenminister durch Erneuerung des großen Beamtenkörpers in nationalsozialistischem Sinne viel realere Dienste zu leisten als durch offene Zugeständnisse an den brutalen Judenhaß.
Trotzdem wäre es sträflicher Optimismus, sich des Ernstes der Lage nicht bewußt zu sein. Je weniger die neuen Männer dem mit Hunger und Not verzweifelt ringenden deutschen Volk durch gesetzgeberische Wunder wirkliche Hilfe zu bringen vermögen, desto näher liet für sie der Wunsch, ut aliquid feci videatur doch wenigstens ein paar Absätze aus dem rassentheoretischen Programm der Partei in die politische Wirklichkeit umzusetzen, was ohne sensationelle und kompromittierende Judengesetze auf dem Wege des „trockenen Pogroms“, der systematischen Aussperrung und Aushungerung der Juden im wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Leben leicht geschehen kann.
Inwieweit in einem nationalsozialistischen Beamtenkörper das alte preußische Beamtenpflichtgefühl über die so lange gepflegten antisemitischen Instinkte Herr werden und Schikanen und Rechtsverkürzungen gegenüber Juden ausschließen wird, in wieweit eine Polizei, die einen Nationalsozialisten als obersten Chef über sich weiß, in jedem Einzelfall zuverlässig und unparteiisch bleiben wird, wenn es sich um Juden (oder gar um sozialistische oder kommunistische Staatsbürger) handelt – das sind Fragen und Zweifel, über deren Berechtigung nur die Zukunft entscheiden kann.
Wie die Dinge liegen, scheint es uns noch das kleinere Uebel zu sein, daß durch Tolerierung der neuen Regierung von Seiten des Zentrums die parlamentarische Basis und Kontrolle – trotz eines befristeten Ermächtigungsgesetzes – wenigstens grundsätzlich aufrechterhalten bleibt (man denke zum Beispiel nur an die Gefahren, die sonst der שחיטה drohen), als wenn ein Mißtrauensvotum des Reichstags die Auflösung mit allen ins Uferlose sich erstreckenden Aspekten aus Diktatur und Staatsnotstands-Experimenten herbeiführt.
Or, in English:
The New Situation
Der Israelit, Issue 5, 02.02.1933
The Hitler cabinet, which established itself in Berlin on Monday afternoon, represents a severe emotional burden for all German Jewry, and beyond that, for all circles that see in the exaggeration of today’s nationalist racial fanaticism an obstacle on the path of human civilization and historical progress.
To be sure, we are by no means of the opinion that Mr. Hitler and his friends, having finally attained their long-sought power, will now proceed according to the recipe of the “Angriff” or the “Völkischer Beobachter” and summarily strip German Jews of their constitutional rights, confine them to a racial ghetto, or abandon them to the predatory and murderous instincts of the mob. They not only cannot do this because their power is limited by a whole series of other power factors from the Reich President to the neighboring parties, but they certainly do not want to do it either; for the whole atmosphere at the height of a European world power, which wants to and must remain in the concert of civilized nations, and in addition, the awareness of being relieved for the time being of the necessity of demagogic wooing for the thunderous applause of turbulent mass rallies in the Wilhelmstrasse, is more conducive to ethical reflection on one’s better self than the previous opposition position. The new Prussian Minister of the Interior can render much more real services to yesterday’s fellow combatants, the party friends, by renewing the large civil service corps in a National Socialist sense than by open concessions to brutal Jew-hatred.
Nevertheless, it would be criminal optimism not to be aware of the seriousness of the situation. The less the new men are able to bring real help to the German people desperately struggling with hunger and misery through legislative miracles, the closer lies for them the desire, ut aliquid feci videatur, to at least implement a few paragraphs from the party’s racial theoretical program into political reality, which can easily happen without sensational and compromising Jewish laws by way of the “dry pogrom,” the systematic exclusion and starvation of Jews in economic and cultural life.
To what extent the old Prussian sense of official duty will prevail over the long-nurtured anti-Semitic instincts in a National Socialist civil service corps and exclude harassment and curtailment of rights against Jews, to what extent a police force that knows it has a National Socialist as its supreme chief will remain reliable and impartial in every individual case when it comes to Jews (or even socialist or communist citizens) – these are questions and doubts whose justification only the future can decide.
As things stand, it seems to us to be the lesser evil that through the toleration of the new government by the Center Party, the parliamentary basis and control – despite a time-limited enabling act – at least in principle remains intact (one need only think, for example, of the dangers that would otherwise threaten שחיטה*, than if a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag were to bring about dissolution with all its boundless aspects of dictatorship and state of emergency experiments.
*shechita, ritual slaughter
We all know what actually happened in the twelve years that followed this change in government in Berlin.
We do not yet know what is going to happen with the Western alliance, or the United States, in the coming years. But there is zero reason for optimism.
How did we get here, asks the CBC rhetorically, as they recount the events that led to Trump’s announcement of across-the-board tariffs on Canadian imports to the United States.
On Nov. 5, Americans chose Donald Trump to be their next president. Twenty days later, Trump announced, via a post to his own social-media platform, that he would apply a 25 per cent tariff to all products imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico — a response, he claimed, to the fact that people and illegal drugs were entering the United States from those two countries.
At least in the case of Canada, this was an irrational justification. Seizures of fentanyl at America’s northern border represented 0.08 per cent of all fentanyl seized by American officials in the last fiscal year. The number of people entering the United States through Canada has also been a fraction of the total number of people entering via Mexico.
They also wonder if this might be a shot in the arm for Canadian patriotism. Damn right it will be and for a damn good reason:
But if American democracy continues down a dark path, not being American might be more than an argument against annexation. In that case, as Rob Goodman, an author and professor of politics and public administration at Toronto Metropolitan University, has written, “Canadian distinctiveness” might be not a “vanity object,” but an “essential safeguard of Canadian democracy.”
Again and again, I am reminded of the television adaptation of The Handmaid Tale, depicting a diminished, yet independent Canada where life remains reasonably normal even as south of the border, a country that no longer calls itself the United States of America but is renamed The Republic of Gilead, chooses totalitarianism. No wonder that even our cats seem to be concerned…
Some economists worry that fighting back against Trump’s tariffs is a losing proposition. I don’t think so. Canada’s economy is small compared to that of the US but not that small, and we have something America does not: the resilience of a people determined to fight back against a former friend who so blatantly betrays us. Yes, we will pay more at the grocery counter. We know that. Yes, American goods will disappear from shelves: in fact we will help remove them. But if this is how Trump thinks he can coerce Canada to become the “51st state”, I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of my compatriots when I respond with a resounding (even if un-Canadian in its directness) fuck off. Va chier.
In short: This is not a joke anymore. What Trump is doing is how a country treats its worst enemies, not its friends. If Trump thinks Canada is a pushover, I think he’s in for an even nastier surprise than his best buddy in Moscow when he attacked Ukraine. Let’s hope we never find out just how tough and resilient Canadians will be when backstabbed.
Friends of mine used to think (perhaps not anymore) that I went stark raving mad when I suggested that Canada should rapidly initiate an independent weapons program and build a credible nuclear deterrent. We have the know-how, the materials, we have the technology and the means. As to why? Consider this is a great, rich, but underpopulated country, sandwiched between tyrannical, warmongering Putinistan across the North Pole to the north and the rabid personality cult of Trumpland to the south, and you have your answer.
Repeatedly, I see questions on Quora, asking why Canada resists Trump’s suggestion of becoming the 51st state. Why bother going through the likely hardships instead of giving in to Mr. Trump’s will?
Very well, allow me to offer my own contribution, to help the process along. Here, I designed a nice voting slip that could be used for this purpose. The date, of course, can be easily changed.
I must confess that the idea is not original. I had help, an elegant historical precedent that, I think, is perfectly suitable for this purpose:
I hope my contribution is received in the same spirit in which it is offered, and perhaps thanked by a nice, “from the heart” gesture (with the right arm properly extended of course) by those who approve.
PDF is available upon request.
Eighty years ago today, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the site of one of the worst systematic crimes against humanity, was liberated.
Some are trying to erase the Holocaust from history. Some are trying to pretend that it was no big deal.
But it did happen. And it was a “big deal”: Some six million Jews were murdered, along with millions of others: Roma, homosexuals, the disabled, prisoners-of-war, political prisoners.
“Never again” and “we remember”, we are told, but it is happening over and ever again, even if on a smaller scale; and many are trying hard to make us forget.
We won’t. I won’t.
Eighty years is a long time. Very few people are alive today who have seen this hell on Earth firsthand and survived to tell the tale. But a few are still around. And there are those of us who knew people who were there. Who knew people who avoided being deported there only by the grace of God as the expression goes. (One elderly friend of mine, no longer among us, told me how he was personally saved by Raoul Wallenberg, as he was one of the lucky ones carrying a Swedish Schutzpass.) There were those who tried to help people survive. My father, I was told, was among them: forging documents for friends, for his Jewish first wife and her family members, to help them survive, avoid the ghetto, avoid the cattle cars.
“Never again” is a nice catch phrase but what if it happens again? Will we remember? Will I remember? And if I do remember, will I have the courage of my father?
I hope I’ll never have to find out.
Someone reminded me of Kurt Weill’s poignant 1936 anti-war musical Johnny Johnson today. I recalled in particular the last song, Johnny’s song, in which the simple-minded protagonist Johnny, never losing his faith in humanity, tries to sell toys to an indifferent public who are rushing over to the next square to listen to another warmongering speaker. “Toys, toys!” cries Johnny but no one listens.
I did not remember the song’s lyrics. Apparently, there are different versions, but the one I am familiar with includes these lines (emphasis mine):
At last we’ll find the day
When joy shall be our songI hear them say it’s all baloney
The world’s a mighty cruel place
With tooth and claw and promise phony
An old hard guy he wins the raceBut you and I don’t think so
We know there’s something still
Of good beyond such ill
Within our heart and mind
Ouch. Did Paul Green, who wrote the song’s lyrics, foresee the future?
Oh well. Here’s a Midjourney cat that I think aptly captures the musical’s atmosphere.
Today I read the first few words of an article in The New Yorker: “Biden’s Pardon of Hunter Further Undermines…”
For the briefest of moments I saw a ray of hope. Perhaps The New Yorker‘s writers realized what really is at stake? Perhaps they were concerned about the trends undermining the rule of law?
Sadly, no. The missing expression (the title was truncated to fit into the column display presented by my e-mail program) was “… His Legacy”. That’s all they were concerned about. Biden’s legacy. The broader context: tactical victories and defeats in the never-ending political warfare in the United States.
One of my cats, mourning the rule of law…
Watching polarized American politics in recent years, it was evident that both sides were consumed by ideology and the desire to defeat the opposing side. Republicans were busy building an anti-establishment creed along with the alarming personality cult of Trump; meanwhile, Democrats have gone overboard with woke nonsense, from cancel culture to fights over pronouns to defunding the police. Republicans went out of their way to “own the Libs”, while Democrats strived to end the “white supremacist patriarchy”. However, there was one crucial difference: By and large (and notwithstanding Republican accusations about “weaponizing” the government), the Democrats mostly played by the rules, i.e., they supported the rules-based system of the American Republic, whereas Republicans declared the system itself, the “deep state”, their key enemy. As January 6, 2020 demonstrated, they were quite willing to step outside the boundaries of the rule of law to have their way.
This, of course, put Democrats at a disadvantage, akin to fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
But now, I think, this is about to change. Call it Joe Biden’s “fuck you” moment: he decided to use his presidential powers to pardon his own son, Hunter Biden, despite repeated assurances that he had no plans to do so.
I really cannot blame him. When the president-elect is a convicted felon, when many of his nominees for key positions are themselves at the very least the targets of credible accusations of criminal behavior, I suspect Biden had enough, playing by the rules. (Technically speaking it is of course not against the rules for the President to pardon his own family members, even though it is obviously a massive conflict of interest.)
This, I think, is a pivotal, watershed moment, however. By pardoning Hunter, Biden basically declared that the rules no longer apply to their side either. This seems to be yet another nail in the coffin of the great American experiment. Once again I see historical parallels. Two thousand years ago, it was Brutus and his co-conspirators who decided that the rules no longer apply to them either. Granted, pardoning a family member is not quite on par with assassinating a Dictator, but the undercurrent is the same: The rule of law no longer matters. We may yet be generations away from the leaders of America to openly declare themselves emperors, but this is yet another crucial step towards a system of government in which the “first among equals”, the country’s head of state and head of government, is not really an equal anymore but someone entirely above the law.
One of the secrets of the success of the Roman Empire was the fact that the first emperor, Gaius Octavius, better known by the family name he adopted and the title bestowed upon him by the Roman Senate as Augustus Caesar, was truly competent. I don’t expect competence from Trump. However, is VP, J. D. Vance, is another matter. That gentleman seems frighteningly intelligent and ruthless. Makes me wonder if he is, in fact, going to become the de facto first emperor of an emerging imperial United States of America; our modern-day Octavius.
Oh well, interesting times. Love it, to be honest. Things are about to get really… fascinating.
In the days following Tuesday’s historic US elections, I’ve seen many reactions by liberals: friends, acquaintences, public figures like journalists.
With few exceptions, almost all of them appear to have jumped to the wrong conclusions. “Putin won this election,” they said. “Harris should have focused on immigration,” they told us. “We underestimated the stupidity,” they complained. “They’re all Nazis,” I’m told.
Nope. Trump voters are not stupid. It was not Russian propaganda that decided the outcome. You won’t shame them into voting Democrat by comparing them to the Nazis. Nor did the result have anything to do with any specific tactical decisions by the Democratic campaign.
This election—which may have tragic, historic consequences concerning the stability and viability of the Western world order that dominated the planet and ushered in an unprecedented period of relative peace and prosperity in the wake of 1945—was decided by factors that were known to Aristotle more than 2500 years ago.
Portrait of Aristoteles. Copy of the Imperial era (1st or 2nd century) of a lost bronze sculpture made by Lysippos
“Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean,” he writes in Politics*. “It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best,” he continues, warning us that when the very rich and the very poor dominate over the mean, “thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying“. This leads him to his key conclusion: “But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best governed; they are, as we say, the natural elements of a state. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbours’ goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich.”
And look at our world in 2024. Throughout the Western hemisphere, the middle class is in retreat. Despite the rise in GDP, incomes remain stagnant, barely keeping up with inflation, if that. Housing prices are skyrocketing, making home ownership an unattainable dream for much of the younger generation; even renting a decent home is beyond the reach of many. The wage and income gaps are both on the rise, even as the streets fill up with the homeless, public infrastructure is often crumbling, healthcare systems are under stress and often near the breaking point, even public transportation fails to deliver far too often.
Now you might think that these issues should be top priority for political forces that occupy the left of the political palette. After all, traditionally it’s those on the left who championed these causes, worked in favor of a strong middle class. Not anymore. Even when the left’s agenda is not saturated by woke virtue signaling about pronouns, DEI education, divisive identity politics and other forms of self-serving activism, they failed to address the very concerns that drove far too many voters to vote for Trump. They also missed the elephant in the room: The issues are not specific to the United States. The rise of authoritarians like Orban of Hungary, the success of Brexit, the election of right-wing leaders elsewhere in Europe, the rise of the far-right in Germany are all pointing in the same direction.
Calling Trump voters stupid, racist, fascists is not helpful. Perhaps there were stupid, racist fascists voting for Trump, but the vast majority who voted for him were none of the above. They were concerned citizens, deeply disappointed with the lack of solutions coming from the left. Perhaps they underestimated the dangers represented by a Trump who openly indicated his willingness to weaken democratic institutions, who openly declared the institutions of the American Republic the enemy. Time will tell.
However, the left had a clear path ahead: forget identity politics, virtue signaling, cancel culture, and other forms of radical activism, intolerance in the name of tolerance, illiberal means to enforce the made-up standards of woke liberalism. Focus instead on the issues that matter, promoting real solutions to the problems plaguing the middle class. Because if you don’t, someone else will… or at least they will pretend to do so. And that’s exactly what right-wing populists do.
Perhaps folks on the left should spend a tad more time reading Aristotle.
In case Aristotle is not enough, here’s my collection of posts on Trump 2.0. I collect them here so that I can easily direct folks to this post rather than explain all over again what I think. Anyhow, I still recommend Aristotle over my own pearls of wisdom.
And now that we’re done with this political nonsense, let me go back and do useful things.
Earlier tonight, I heard a Republican strategist on CBC News telling us not to worry if Trump wins: his bark is worse than his bite.
Damn, I hope he is right. But historical precedents suggest otherwise. I am, of course, especially reminded of how Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933; many who supported him were also convinced that his bark was worse than his bite.
Well, it wasn’t. The rest, as they say, is history.
As a matter of fact, perhaps I am an alarmist, but I tend to think of something else after the spectacle tonight. It is what became perhaps the most iconic moment from the entire Star Wars franchise: the recognition by Padmé Amidala of what just happened when the Galactic Senate granted extraordinary powers to chancellor Palpatine.
Coming back from the land of science-fiction cautionary tales to that of real history: In early August 1914, Sir Edward Grey, Britain’s foreign secretary remarked that the lights were going out all over Europe. Today… well, America was called by the late Ronald Reagan the shining city on the hill of liberal democracy. The lights of this great shining city might have been extinguished tonight. There are other lights of liberal democracy still shining brightly, including the lights here in Canada, but they are much less powerful and rapidly diminishing in number. Liberal democracy, which has always been an outlier in the course of human history, is now fully in retreat.
And, well, I daresay many who call themselves “liberals” bear at least some responsibility. Over the past few decades, life for many in the Western world stagnated or became worse. Incomes barely kept up with inflation, homes became unaffordable. The income and wealth gap between rich and poor rose. Families could no longer promise their children a life that, never mind better, would be at least as good as the lives of their parents. Public infrastructure was often neglected, health care systems remained underfunded. Many Western cities saw a palpable rise in homelessness and visible poverty: Just look at the number of homeless right here on the main streets of downtown Ottawa, minutes from Parliament Hill.
Leaders and activists on the left had ample chance to step in, offer and, if in power, implement real, forward-looking solutions. Instead, they chose to focus on, ahem, the “important” problems of the day: proper pronouns for everyone, DEI programs at workplaces, stamping out white supremacism in math education (I kid you not! Wish it was a joke) and other pressing issues. In light of that, why is anyone surprised that populism won the day?
Sadly I am not. Much as I rooted for Harris, I predicted a Trump victory, and it appears that I was not wrong.
Now we get a chance to find out if that CBC analyst was right after all. Is the bark worse than the bite? I’m not holding my breath…
Here’s a pro-Trump view of the recent Trump rally, shared by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in his October 30 “Global Briefing” newsletter:
Americans are tired of living in survival mode. Raging wars, a crippled economy, an immigration crisis, a growing chasm of political division, and rapid inflation have made Americans realize that they want joy again, they want unity again, and they want to dream again. Standing in such a significant arena, surrounded by a sea of red hats and adoring, cheering Trump fans, I couldn’t help but get emotional about how historic this moment in time is for our country. I was 14 years old when Trump was elected president and have, like many of his other supporters, been forced to deal with the vitriol, insults, and hatred of the left over the past eight years. It has often been tiresome to stand up for my own beliefs in the face of such fierce adversity. But watching Trump on that glorious stage at Madison Square Garden reminded me—reminded all Americans—of what lies ahead with a Trump presidency: hope. And that is always worth fighting for.
To say that these words — honest, heartfelt no doubt — give me the creeps is the understatement of the year. What these words actually remind me of is this immortal scene from the film Cabaret:
Yes, they were earnest. Their feelings were true. And that’s what makes this scene one of the most disturbing scenes ever in movie history.
No, I did not suddenly have a change of heart concerning Trump’s likely victory and the resulting, unprecedented subversion of American democracy that I expect to see.
I just turned full-blown cynic.
I am, after all, 61 years old with no children to worry about. Even if I remain healthy for a long time to come, the bulk of my life is very obviously behind me, not ahead of me. And I lived that life during an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity, unique in the history of humanity. (No, not perfect. But unprecedented and unique in extent and duration.) I never knew hunger, never had existential fears, never was deprived of my most basic rights. So who am I to complain?
But now, things are about to get exciting. No, not in a good way, but exciting nonetheless. And as I said multiple times in the past, Trump is but a symptom. Even if he loses this election, the underlying causes remain. Rising inequality. A stagnant middle class. Worsening living standards, the inability to offer the new generation a better life, or at least a life comparable to that of their parents. Social tensions reignited, often by opportunistic activists who’d rather see the wounds fester (so they can profit from them) than heal. None of these go away even if Trump drops dead tomorrow. And it transcends the United States. The issues exist here in Canada, throughout Europe and elsewhere. Regimes opposed to the very concept of liberal democracy are taking notice, and playing this to their advantage.
What will be the ultimate outcome? A major war is a near certainty, in my opinion. Collapse of many democracies is likely, with the exception of those few that have within them the will to reform, and also have the ability to protect their borders. The collapse of the global, interconnected economy will bring insane suffering and only play into the hands of future autocrats.
Illustration by DALL-E
I have no idea when the proverbial poo will collide with the ventilator. But collide it will, and it will happen sooner, rather than later. I don’t think the world has been this close to the brink at any moment in my lifetime, anytime since 1945 as a matter of fact. But now I no longer fear that future. Rather, I have become mighty curious. It is, after all, not every day that one gets a chance to witness such a monumental moment in history, something on the scale of the collapse of the Roman Republic, at the very least.
Today is October 23.
In my native Hungary, they’re celebrating the 68th anniversary of the failed 1956 anti-Soviet revolution, which began on this day.
Elsewhere in the world, this is Fallout Day. In the universe of the Fallout game franchise, the Great War that ended civilization began (and also concluded) on October 23, 2077.
I asked DALL-E and Midjourney both to produce an image. Midjourney created several images and I loved most of them but in the end, I am opting in favor of this DALL-E image after all. Its serenity captures the atmosphere of the game better: we are, after all, centuries after the catastrophe, in a mostly quiet, abandoned Wasteland.
Also, while the famous Power Armor may be an iconic in-game accessory, a wanderer wearing little more than a thin Vault jumpsuit better captures the vulnerability a player feels, especially when entering the Wasteland for the first time.
I hope sights like this remain firmly in the realm of computer game fiction. Well, as much as possible… some of the sights that we’ve seen from Ukraine in the past two and a half years unfortunately come close.
First, let me express my unbridled optimism: Yes, there will be history books in the future. I hope.
What will they say about our present time? Nothing encouraging, I fear.
They’ll note the date October 17, 2024, as the date when Ukraine basically presented a nuclear ultimatum: If the country is not welcome into NATO, at some point in the future it may very well rearm itself with nuclear weapons. Which, arguably, it has every right to do, since 30 years ago Ukraine gave up what was then the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for supposedly robust security guarantees by, among other states, the Russian Federation.
In unrelated news, several days ago there was a minor earthquake registered in the Dnipro region of Ukraine. Which, incidentally, supposedly coincides with some old Soviet weapons testing grounds. Or not. Ukrainians say the epicenter was several kilometers below the surface and the world is not alarmed. Still…
One of Midjourney’s suggestions for the cover of a future history book
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is gaining. If I had to bet my money, I’d bet on him winning in November. The consequences will likely be catastrophic, both for democracy within the American Republic and for NATO and the broader Western democratic alliance.
In my country of birth, Hungary, Orban continues to reign supreme. And he’s no longer the outlier in Europe: increasingly, nationalists and authoritarians are gaining elsewhere on the continent.
Elsewhere, China continues its saber-rattling at Taiwan, North Korea now sends soldiers to help Russia, the Middle Eastern conflict widens, there’s even a spat between Canada and India over an Indian assassionation of a Sikh nationalist on Canadian soil not long ago.
In short, let me not mince words about this: The world is fucked up badly, and it’s becoming more and more fucked up each and every passing day.
Meh. I am 61, and I have no children to worry about. So maybe I’ll just lean back and watch the show? It’s about to get really exciting.
But yes, I still hope that there will be future history books.
Recently I invented two nightmare scenarios concerning American politics. Well, how about a third one.
Imagine for a moment that January 20 comes about; preceded by a period of two months loaded with crazy lawsuits, state electoral offices consumed with conspiracy theories, disputed outcomes. Ultimately, a fatally divided Supreme Court with, say, five conservative justices on one side, one conservative with second thoughts (arguably more interested in protecting the US Constitution than granting free reign to Trumpists) and three liberals on the other.
So when the fateful day comes, inauguration, the world witnesses the most alarming spectacle. Even as the five conservatives swear in Trump, across town, the remaining four justices do the same with Harris.
Midjourney does not let me depict Trump or Harris directly, but it was willing to produce this image of competing Roman emperors.
Looking at history as a guide, the outcome will likely not be pretty. There were competing emperors in the history of the Roman Empire, and competing popes in the history of the Catholic Church. The result was often (always?) violence, bloodshed, suffering. We’ve not seen something like this in functioning modern democracies (even the US Civil War as a more, well, orderly business) but I expect the worst.
Unlikely? Thankfully so. Impossible? Not anymore, I think, and that speaks volumes about the times in which we live.
