FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

As the federal election moves forward to its April 28th voting date, there is one leader of a party who is increasingly portraying himself as Canada’s version of a mini-Trump.  That leader is Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  His discourse prior to the election call has on several occasions been similar in content and tone to that of Donald Trump.  He spoke of Canada being broken; of “woke” predominance among the current Liberal government and the New Democratic Party (NDP); of a need to be tougher on crime; of Canada’s need to “drill-baby-drill” when it comes to fossil fuels, most notably in crude heavy oil found in Alberta.

In recent weeks, Poilievre appears to be even more aggressive, primarily due to the recent polls which show that the Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now leading: including being the preferred candidate for the position of Prime Minister.  This is a major shift from prior to the election and the resignation of Pierre Trudeau as PM, when the Conservatives had a twenty plus lead in the polls.  However, along came Donald Trump and his tariffs against Canada and all that changed.  Carney has a business, economic and international finance background.  This has led Canadians to believe that Carney can better negotiate some sort of new trade deal with the Trump administration.  In addition, many Canadians are now comparing Poilievre to a mini-Trump because of the Conservative policies and the ongoing slogans surfacing in his campaign. 

Most recently, Poilievre has pushed for tougher measures as they pertain to sentences handed out by the courts under Canada’s Criminal Code.  This included the idea of arbitrary “three strikes” vis-à-vis convictions, whereby one’s prison term will be automatic and potentially longer.  However, one only has to study the consequences of this approach in California where its use clogged up the justice system for years and resulted in extreme over crowding in its prisons.  The situation was so bad that many non-violent prisoners had to be released as a result of COVID 19 and the danger of widespread infection in these crowded facilities. Get ready to build new prisons!

Next, is Poilievre’s pledge to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the Canadian constitution (Section 33) to allow longer sentences for multiple murderers, something that the Supreme Court of Canada had in 2022 ruled against as a violation of an offender’s Charter rights.  Politically, this represents a groundbreaking promise and he would become the first prime minister to invoke the clause while in office.  As one expert noted, the extraordinary use of the “notwithstanding clause” would occur not in crisis situations, not judiciously, not after massive public debates and so on, but due to a majority government which for its own political reasons is playing to its base.  Sounds like something that Trump would do.  Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected using the notwithstanding clause.  In order to protect established rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts have openly urged all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.  Without extensive prior-consultation within Canadian society at large, the clause’s federal use would establish a potentially perilous precedent with its first-time usage at the federal level.

Poilievre also appears to want to give carte blanche to the Canadian oil and gas industry to expand its production and exports in order to offset the American tariffs and grow the industry.  This of course would mean rapidly expanding pipeline construction from Alberta to the west coast, speeding up environmental reviews and consultations with indigenous peoples in the territories through which pipelines would go.  However, while this would certainly benefit the oil and gas industry in Canada
, one has to ask whether and by how much Canadians will benefit.  The Conservative base in Alberta
will certainly benefit, but how about the rest of the country?  In addition, many in the Conservative party tend to be “climate change” deniers.  Sounds familiar! 

All in all, Poilievre’s campaign has clearly had elements of Trumpism reflected in its content: something not lost on many Canadians.  Let’s face it, Trump is not too popular in Canada at this moment, and his unpopularity is definitely echoed in this election.

Canada Climate Change Donald Trump Federal Election Federal Government Populism in Canada Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
Mar 30

U.S. Increasingly Moving Towards Police State

by bcurry

President Trump is obviously clamping down broadly on dissent using the tools of the federal government.  Now, the administration has put the pressure on universities themselves to crack down on student protesters.  Increasingly, for example, one is seeing that colleges are using surveillance videos and search warrants to investigate students involved in pro-Palestinian protests.  Some experts believe that it’s this new frontier in campus security that could threaten civil liberties.

In addition, it has been pointed out in the media that some colleges, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, George Mason University, University of California, Indiana University Bloomington, and University of North Carolina to name a few, have had the university police obtain warrants to search personal property such as a student’s car, laptop or cellphone.  In most cases, no actual crime has been committed by the affected student.

Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, reportedly notes that university police have sometimes even cited social media posts to justify warrant requests.  But as he states, such posts are constitutionally protected speech, and he goes on further to stipulate that such campus police tactics could very likely chill free expression.  Furthermore, lawyers representing affected students argue that a college seeking a search warrant against one of its own students is not because that student committed a crime, but purely because in many cases a student attended a protest and was filmed at the protest.  In most cases so far, few students end up not even being charged.  In some cases, the university may simply threaten them with possible suspensions should they continue to participate in protests, including those that are peaceful.

In addition, for months now, President Trump has been threatening to deport foreign students who took part in last year’s campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.  Apparently, investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the Trump administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Curious indeed since ICE typically focuses on human traffickers and drug smugglers for possible deportation.  As in the recent arrest by ICE of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student with a green card living in New York, the government is using an old provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to argue that his actions during protests at Columbia University harmed U.S. foreign policy interests by fomenting anti-Semitism.  As of yet he has not been charged with an actual crime.  The Act was passed in the context of Cold War-era fears and suspicions of infiltrating Soviet and communist spies and sympathizers within American institutions and federal government.  Anticommunist sentiment was associated at the time with McCarthyism in the U.S., led by an administration aiming to push for selective immigration to preserve national security.  Since then, there have been very few cases where similar powers were cited in deportation proceedings under the Act.  Its current use would certainly be difficult to defend in the courts.

While some search warrants may be related to an ongoing campus vandalism investigation, few of the campus police seizures have actually resulted in charges being laid.  Indeed, without just cause I would argue that such search and seizure practices by campus police endanger free speech and the civil liberties of those affected university students.  As was the case in the 1930s Nazi Germany, today it’s students, but tomorrow it could be anyone; including those living, studying and working legally in the U.S.  This new reality certainly meets the definition of a police state.

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education in U.S. Federal Government Judicial System Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Mar 17

Donald Trump’s Administration Is Clearly Showing Signs Of Becoming Despotic

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a despot is “a ruler who exercises absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.”  Anyone who has studied American governance under the constitution understands that it provides for “checks and balances.”  In order to do this, there are three basic pillars: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  However, today we are seeing an evident weakening of two of these principle pillars under the Trump administration.  There is little doubt that attacks are being made against the justice system and the rule of law.  The President has entered into a new process never before witnessed in the U.S., other than during times of wars.  The President is abusing his powers while contesting the roles of the courts and of Congress.  He is undermining the very constitutional rights of many people, whether citizens, legally living or refugees in the U.S.

The latest example is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student who is married to an American citizen, living in New York, and recently obtained a green card giving him permanent residency in the U.S. Mr. Khalil has never been charged with a criminal offence.  On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was arrested by ICE officers and flown to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.  On March 10th, District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that the Trump administration not deport Khalil pending judicial review of his arrest.  Mr. Khalil was a student activist and negotiator in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.  After student protests on numerous American campuses, President Trump issued an executive order promising to combat anti-semitism and prosecute or “remove” perpetrators of such views.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a little-used 1952 Cold-War era statute as the rationale for Mr. Khalil’s detention. The law says that the government can initiate deportation proceedings against anyone whose presence in the country is deemed adversarial to the U.S. foreign policy interests.  Rubio subsequently posted a threat to deport Hamas supporters. No one has yet provided any proof that Mr. Khalil has a direct or indirect connection Hamas.  If anything, he was actively exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.  Needless-to-say, there were those, including Trump who would deny this right because they simply did not agree with his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some Columbia administrators.  For this reason, he was targeted from the outset.

Just this past weak, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly arrest and deport those the administration identifies as gang members without many of the legal processes common in immigration cases. The enemies law allows for summary deportations of people from countries at war with the United States.  One result is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some of whom are claimed by the administration to be gang members.  Subsequently, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law after Trump’s order invoking it.  In a hastily scheduled hearing sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge said he did not believe that federal law allowed the President’s action.  Now there is serious contention over whether the Trump administration had ignored an explicit court order, given that the deportees are currently in the El Salvador prison.

Moreover, there appears to be an apparent use of unproven assertions pertaining to ensuring matters related to “national security”, without undergoing the normal “due process” in providing proof or clear evidence before the courts.  In addition, it is obvious that Trump is blatantly “weaponizing” the Department of Justice to do his bidding, something that he falsely claimed had be done to him in the past.  In my opinion, Trump’s actions are increasingly becoming those of a despot.  Whether you agree with me or not, these are certainly dangerous times for American governance!

Civil Rights Donald Trump Free Speech Immigration Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Mar 8

As a Canadian, How Are We Supposed to React to Donald Trump?

by bcurry

The border treaty Donald Trump recently referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the U.S.  Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties.  For years, both Canada and the U.S. have shared responsibility and resources in managing border security and environmental concerns surrounding the Great Lakes in particular.  For example, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1991 to address transboundary air pollution leading to acid rain.  Both countries agreed to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary precursors to acid rain, and to work together on acid rain-related scientific and technical cooperation.  The Ozone Annex was added to the Agreement in 2000 to address transboundary air pollution leading to high ambient levels of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.  One result was that, as of 2020, emissions of sulphur dioxide in Canada and the U.S. decreased by 78% and 92%, respectively, from 1990 emission levels.  This preserved our water quality and in turn the health of our fish stocks in shared waters and in general.

As far as border security is concerned, this is a red herring put out there by Donald Trump.  As it stands, for sometime now, only less than one percent of the fentanyl comes across the border from Canada, as per the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Under the other hand, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) estimates that over 80% of all guns used in violent crimes in Canada originate in the U.S.

According to the New York Times (March 7, 2025), Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that Trump wants to abandon our treaties and he wants to:

  • eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand,
  • tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and
  • review and reconsider military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We already know that Trump is interested in having access to Canada’s abundance of critical mineral rights as noted in my previous blog of February 17, 2005: Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights | FROLITICKS. 

With his recent flip flopping on the proposed 25 percent tariffs against all Canadian exports to the U.S., it’s hard to get a reading on where Trump’s next move will go.  All that his administration is doing is creating a hell of a lot of global and economic uncertainty.  His expectation that Canadians would be cow towing to his wishes is way off.  If anything, he has generated an immense amount of Canadian pride across this country.  Canadians see these attacks on our sovereignty as an insult, especially from a nation that was a trusted friend and ally.  All in all, it’s difficult to know exactly what Trump’s expectations are!  Just how are Canadians supposed to react differently?  Your guess is as good as mine!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations War on Drugs

Leave a comment »
Feb 25

Trump Administration Halts Research Spending in the Health Field

by bcurry

As a recent article in the New York Times1 points out, by some measures, the U.S. produces more influential health-sciences research than the next 10 leading countries combined.  At risk are not only the tens of thousands of grants the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H) awards each year, but also American dominance of biomedical research.  The world’s leading medical labs can be found in the United States, and they rely heavily on grants from the N.I.H.  Billions of dollars are spent on research for diseases and health conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, brain injuries, child health, diabetes, H.I.V. infections and numerous other ailments.  The N.I.H notes that every dollar the agency spends on research generates more than two dollars in economic activity.  Why?  The results of medical research in the past have often led to the pharmaceutical industry developing drugs and vaccines for the treatment and prevention of diseases and health conditions, thereby fueling pharmaceutical advancements.  The result is also the fact that American companies will export many of the resulting drugs and vaccines to other countries, helping to grow the U.S. economy and positively lead to an American trade surplus.

Canadians and Americans have benefited from the medical research leading to pharmaceutical advancements.  Often, Canadian researchers will contribute to health-sciences research as was the case in the discovery of insulin years ago.  Today, there is on-going biomedical research at a number of Canada’s top universities.  Hopefully, researchers in both countries will continue to share in their findings.  The current U.S. administration’s handcuffing of its own scientists and holding back their important research will no doubt lead to serious consequences for advancements in the health field. 

The above mentioned New York Times article goes on to stipulate: “In response to all the uncertainty, universities are retrenching. The University of Pittsburgh froze Ph.D. admissions. Columbia University’s medical school paused hiring and spending. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology froze the hiring of non-faculty employees.”  In addition, some lab leaders indicated that they were making contingency plans to fire scientists, and that graduate students are being forced to search for new sources of funding.  I personally know of one young Canadian graduating from the University of Ottawa’s science faculty who a few years ago ended up in New York to participate in cancer research as part of a post-graduate program.

Much of biomedical research deals with not only areas related to treatments, but also areas related to the prevention of diseases, including those which particularly affect our aging population in both countries.  To hamper the work of such an important American institution as the National Institutes of Health is a major disservice to Americans and Canadians alike, and will have longer-term consequences.

1 “Paying for Science”: Benjamin Mueller, New York Times, February 25, 2025

Budget Canada Donald Trump Scientific Research US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Feb 17

Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights

by bcurry

After three years of war that forged a new unity within NATO, the Trump administration has made clear it is planning to focus its attention elsewhere: in Asia, Latin America, the Arctic and anywhere President Trump believes the U.S. can obtain critical mineral rights.  Moreover, this is why Trump to a large extent has his eye on annexing Canada and Greenland, both of which have an abundance of critical minerals such as uranium, graphite and lithium.  Critical minerals are currently used in over 230 sectors of the U.S. economy, from energy infrastructure to advanced technology manufacturing, and from aerospace engineering, including satellites, to medical equipment.  Critical minerals are the building blocks for the green and digital economy and demand for them will only grow throughout the global energy transition. Disruption potential is related to how much of a commodity’s global production is concentrated in countries that are relatively unwilling or unable (due to political or economic instability, workforce or infrastructure inadequacies, regulations, etc…) to supply the U.S. with critical minerals.  Some critical minerals are produced primarily in countries that are economically or politically unstable, or do not have a reliable trade relationship with the U.S. —  thereby representing a higher supply risk.  This however does not apply to Canada which is a stable supplier of minerals in general, including copper, zinc, phosphorus, silicon metal, cobalt, high-purity iron ore, and rare earth elements.

The lack of stability in Ukraine is a major reason why Trump apparently ha turned down Ukraine
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s extraordinary offer that the U.S. be granted a 50 percent interest in all of Ukraine’s critical mineral resources as compensation for past and future support of the war with Russia. 

However, Canada recognizes that critical minerals are the foundation on which modern technology is built upon.  They’re used in a wide range of essential products, from mobile phones and solar panels to electric vehicle batteries and medical applications. By building critical minerals value chains, Canada can become a major global supplier of choice for critical minerals and the clean energy and technology sources they enable.  For this reason, Canada is not willing to simply give away control of these precious minerals to the U.S. or any other nation for that matter.  They are also essential to Canada’s economic or national security.

Canada has already partnered with the U.S. when it comes to discovering and mining critical minerals.  In January 2020, the Canada-U.S. Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals was announced to advance bilateral interest in securing supply chains for the critical minerals needed in strategic manufacturing sectors.  Canada has also worked with other countries such as Japan to encourage cooperation on international standard-setting for critical minerals, as well as several multilateral organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the World Bank, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF).  The U.S. is also an active member of these multilateral organizations.

For these reasons, it is difficult to understand why Trump continues to be so aggressive when it comes to the U.S.-Canada trading relationship.  Canada is an exporting nation, which includes most of our natural resources which make up the bulk of exports.  Canada is very interested in exporting critical minerals to its allies through various trade agreements, and is investing more in the extraction of these minerals.  Canada already provides a stable and growing market when it comes to critical minerals.  If Trump wants to ignore the existing cooperation between the two countries, he does so at his own peril and that of those American businesses which rely on a steady and reliable supply chain.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Ukraine US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jan 5

Elon Musk May Be More Dangerous Than Trump

by bcurry

From a Canadian perspective, president-elect Donald Trump’s recent declarations about Canada’s sovereignty and the imposition of a 25% tariff on the country’s imports are bad enough.  What is even more worrisome is the rise of Elon Musk’s influence in Trump’s circles.  During the election, all of Musk’s posts traveled further and resounded more widely than ever. Mr. Musk’s X account began to dominate the platform, effectively making him the host of his own social media site.  More recently, he has a perch as Trump’s apparent right-hand man, even weighing in on his possible Cabinet choices and joining his conversations with global leaders.  One has to wonder what the role of J.D. Vance will be?

Internationally, Musk has begun an on-line and in-person campaign to try to influence foreign political parties’ policies.  Most notably, he has posted support for the policies of far-right and extremist figures in Europe, criticizing for example the current governments of Britain and Germany.  Recently, Musk has turned his attention to the northern neighbor, praising an interview with Pierre Poilievre, a populist firebrand who leads Canada’s Conservative Party and is expected be the country’s next Prime Minister.  In addition, his financial influence is everywhere because of his companies and investments in the U.S. and Europe.  In some instances, this has led to questions about potential conflicts of interest in light of his many business interests, especially in any future Trump administration.  For example, he once again in a tweet raised Britain’s Online Safety Act which will take effect in March 2025.  The British law requires social media companies like X to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and to give adults more control over what they want to see online.  Companies that run afoul of the law can face fines of up to 10 percent of their global revenue.

Experiences with Trump’s past foreign policies had been troublesome, especially when it comes to NATO, the Middle East and relations with Canada and Mexico.  The involvement of Elon Musk in positioning the next president with respect to foreign policies is a major concern.  Originally, Trump appeared to want Musk to concentrate primarily on improving efficiencies and policies within federal departments and agencies, obviously leading to potential reductions in services, employees and regulations.  Now, reports are indicating that Musk is attempting to also influence Trump’s future foreign policies, including attempts to have an impact on the domestic politics of several European countries and Canada.  Needless-to-say, American interference in other countries’ governance will not be appreciated by their current governments.

The U.S. has been very vocal about any covert foreign interference in its governance and its elections, and rightly so.  Although Elon Musk is not an elected official at this time, he is expected to be part of Trump’s administration in some official advisory capacity.  Any attempt by Musk to influence or represent the foreign policy of the next administration is totally inappropriate.  That is the role of the Secretary of State.  What is especially dangerous is the opportunity presented to Musk to influence the future president on foreign matters by having his ear on a daily basis.  If I were the next Secretary of State, I’d be very concerned.  It’s one thing for Musk to involve himself in U.S. governance and domestic matters, it’s a whole other concern if he attempts to do so in matters related to foreign affairs and dealings with America’s allies!

Donald Trump Elon Musk Foreign Policy Protectionism Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 28

What Does Next Year Have In Store For Canada-U.S. Relations?

by bcurry

Well, if the end of this year is any indication, 2025 is going to be a tough year for Canada-U.S. relations.  Even before he is sworn in as the next president, Donald Trump has alright stirred up a hornets nest with off the cuff statements aimed at Canada.  Firstly, he warns the Canadian government that he intends to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada does not reduce the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the U.S.  Such a move of course could be devastating for Canada, whose economy depends heavily on exports to the U.S.which is its largest trading partner.  However, Trump himself has suggested that the tariff plan may have less to do with border security than with his desire to eliminate the $50 billion trade deficit with Canada.  Interesting, given the fact that oil and gas exports from Canada account for most of that trade imbalance.  Without them, the U.S. generally has a trade surplus with Canada.  This would greatly impact the province of Alberta which supplies the U.S. with the bulk of crude oil and represents a safe, cheaper and more accessible source for Americans.  Therefore, the impact on the U.S. could mean higher costs for fuels.

Nevertheless, both federal and provincial governments in Canada hit the panic button.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was forced to meet with the provincial premiers to discuss how to positively react to Trump, especially as it pertains to the issue of border security.  By the way, the issue of border security has a lot more to do with the border between Mexico and the U.S. That southern border has been a far worst scenario when it comes to illegal border crossings and drug smuggling.  The subsequent immediate result was the dinner Trudeau had with Trump at Mar-a-Lago over the Thanksgiving weekend, as well as telephone conversations between members of Trudeau’s cabinet and Thomas D. Homan, Trump’s designated border czar.  Next, was a follow-up by two top Canadian ministers, Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly and Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc.  They met on December 27th with members of Trump’s circle in Florida about a planned 1.3 billion Canadian dollars’ worth of a package of proposed new border security measures.

Whether the Canadian government’s preemptive moves will satisfy Trump is anyone’s guess?  I would suggest that it won’t and he will continue to pursue the matter as part of trade negotiations with Canada once he is in office.  Meanwhile, Trump is clearly aware that Trudeau’s minority government is now politically in trouble.  There is little doubt that the opposition parties intend to introduce a non-confidence vote possibly by the end of January after parliament re-adjourns after the holidays.  This would then result in an election being called early in the New Year, with a predicted majority win by the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre.  Whether Trudeau will lead the Liberal Party once more is still up in the air given his current unpopularity among the electorate.

This will place a lot of perceived difficulties for Poilievre’s Conservatives on this and other potential issues in the face of President Trump’s administration.  It may mean that the next Canadian government will spend a good deal of its time simply reacting and responding to Trump’s demands.  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed in 2018 during Trump’s first term, is up for review in 2026.  Should a Trump administration take a hard-line stance requesting fewer restrictions on American exports to Canada, it could lead to a trade war with the U.S.  Such an outcome will no doubt further damage our relations, and would lead to higher product costs for consumers in both countries.  Due to our size, Canada has to be an export-import country in order to grow and thrive economically.

What makes the future that much more unclear are the irrational and uninformed outbursts of one Donald Trump.  How the next Canadian government will react to his social media musings will be very interesting?  For Canadians, there is little doubt that these will be trying times.  Stay tuned for more of the Donald Trump saga!

Canada Donald Trump Economy Foreign Policy Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Dec 7

New Political and Social-Economic Realm of Diversity in America

by bcurry

Back in March of this year, the Biden administration ordered changes to a range of federal surveys to gather more detailed information about the nation’s ethnic and racial makeup.  Why is this important?  For example, most people of Middle Eastern and North African descent reportedly are currently classified as “white” in U.S. census data.  According to the Census Bureau estimates, this represented about 3.5 million people falling into that category.  They represent for example people whose descent is Lebanese, Egyptian, Iranian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Israeli.  Under the new format, people of Middle Eastern and North African descent will have their own category.  Officials of the Office of Management and Budget, which oversaw the review of the current survey questions, said the changes were needed in part to make surveys more accurate.

The reason more accurate surveys are increasingly important is that America is increasing becoming more diverse.  The non-white population has nearly doubled since 1990 to over 40% in 2023, as the proportion of non-Hispanic whites decreased from 75% to 58%.  According to the USAFacts Team, the nation’s non-white population has almost doubled over the past four decades, growing from about 24% of the population in 1990 to over 40% in 2023.  Furthermore, according to the US Census Bureau, the multiracial population is projected to be the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group over the next four decades, followed by the Asian or Pacific Islander and Hispanic populations.  The non-Hispanic white population is expected to continue shrinking.

The above announced changes most likely have the potential to rankle conservatives who believe that the nation’s focus on diversity has already gone too far.  Interestingly, both the Republicans and Democrats during the recent election attempted vigorously to cater to Blacks, Latinos and Hispanics to have their votes which were deemed critical in several states.  This time around, the Trump campaign notably targeted those communities with diverse populations.  In many cases, the non-White populace was just as concerned about the economy and immigration as many of his White supporters.  Something that the Democratic Party failed to fully realize during its campaign — a startling factor given Pamela Harris being a Black candidate.

Now one has to ask is whether Donald Trump will allocate more positions in his cabinet to better reflect the nation’s diversity?  So far, the answer appears to be a resounding “no”.  Specifically selecting people from such bodies as Fox News certainly doesn’t help.  He may have to go outside his comfort zone!  In addition, federal policies will have to better reflect the importance of diverse populations.  Those who broadly support the new survey questions — academics, civil liberties advocates and racial and ethnic interest groups among them — say they would help promote greater fairness in schools, housing, hiring and other aspects of society where census data is used.  I’m not so sure that Trump’s immediate advisory body, made up mainly of rich White men, is going to facilitate appropriately dealing with such issues.

Favouring one group over another will lead to even more division within the country.  Hopefully, the Republicans in Congress will appreciate this matter in their deliberations.  Many marginalized groups are made up of persons from diverse communities, and are affected particularly hard by any reduction in socio-economic benefit programs.  Such policies would no doubt lead to increased hardships for these people.  Cutting such programs in the name of “efficiency” should not be an option in these dire times, accentuated by growing poverty, homelessness and inadequate medical care.  One has to question what Trump means when he proposes to make America great again?  Just who will actually benefit?

Donald Trump Immigration Presidential Election 2024 Republican Party The American Dream US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 26

Trump’s Tariff Threats Against Canada and Mexico Will Hurt Americans Equally

by bcurry

Here we go again, Donald Trump’s bargaining concept is getting in the way of economic realities.  Threatening to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican products entering the U.S. is simply nonsense, and most likely in violation of the current U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.  This agreement, by-the-way signed during the former President’s first term, is up for re-negotiation in two years. 

The U.S. is the largest importer of goods in the world, with Mexico, China and Canada its top three suppliers.  Take for example the North American automotive sector which relies on integrative parts and components from both Canada and Mexico, whereby auto plants on both sides of the border and some production lines would most likely screech to a halt.  Not only can higher tariffs cause increased inflation, but they would also cause job losses in all three countries.  The tariffs, if implemented, could dramatically raise prices for consumers on everything from gas to automobiles to agricultural products.

For some reason, President-elect Trump believes that putting economic pressure on Mexico and Canada would force both countries to tighten up their borders against illegal migrants and the influx of drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl.  Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs — which are manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China — have apparently weakened in the last year.  However, the new Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has argued that the flow of drugs is more of a problem of public health and drug consumption in American society, and rightly so.  On the other hand, both Mexico and Canada have an argument when it comes to the influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, estimated to account for over 90% of arms smuggled into both countries.

Unfortunately, neither Mexico nor Canada like to be bullied into adherence to some needless policies by an American president, past or present.  President Sheinbaum has already declared that the introduction of new tariffs would result in retaliatory measures by Mexico.  The Canadian government is already examining the ramifications of increased tariffs, hoping to open up a further dialogue with the new American administration.  Hoping to avoid a trade war, both countries have indicated that they are willing to engage in talks on the issues at hand. 

What’s obviously a shot across the bow, Trump appears to think that these threats are an effective manoeuvre as part of some form of future negotiating tactics.  However, the resulting consequences will be dire for all parties concerned.  Canada in particular has clamped down on the flow of fentanyl both into and out of the country.  More aggressive attempts have also been made to deal with the influx of weapons from the U.S.  There is little doubt that these are security issues on both sides of the border.  Canada is also concerned about the potential influx of migrants from the U.S. as a result of Trump’s talks about a “massive deportation” program of illegal migrants during his second term.  Northern border security is just as important to Canadians as it is to Americans, and is nowhere close to American concerns over its southern border security.

I believe that the Canadian government will take a more cautious and respectful approach to Trump’s threat than the Mexican government which has warned the U.S. against any blatant attempts to subjugate its sovereignty through such threats.  As noted, Sheinbaum’s bristly response suggests that Trump faces a much different Mexican president than he did in his first term.  As for Canada, time will tell.  In addition, federally there will be an election next year and Trump’s administration will have to face a new Canadian government.  Unfortunately, the entire situation does not look good for the future of all three countries, both economically and politically.

Canada Donald Trump Economy NAFTA Protectionist Trade Policies U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.