Category: Politics

Redefining productivity—not in terms of GDP growth but in terms of human and ecological well-being

A “slow economy” could be a good thing, one modeled after the slow food movement. Instead of relentless growth and efficiency, we’d prioritize sustainability, resilience, and well-being. A slow economy could mean local production, longer product life cycles, and a shift from consumption to repair, reuse, and quality craftsmanship.

Just like slow food emphasizes seasonal, local, and organic ingredients over mass-produced convenience, a slow economy might encourage local businesses, cooperative models, and a decoupling from the breakneck pace of global markets. It could also mean redefining productivity—not in terms of GDP growth but in terms of human and ecological well-being.

A slow economy could mean reduced carbon emissions and a healthier climate. Less emphasis on rapid production and global trade could lead to fewer fossil-fueled supply chains, less resource extraction, and a shift toward local, sustainable industries. If we moved away from disposable goods and embraced durability, repair, and sharing economies, we could significantly cut waste and energy consumption. A deliberate slowdown might even give ecosystems a chance to regenerate, aligning economic activity with planetary limits rather than pushing them beyond breaking points.

Of course, slowing down an economy isn’t without risks. Many systems—pensions, social services, and employment—depend on steady economic activity. But maybe the goal isn’t stopping growth entirely, just rethinking what kind of growth we actually need.

What do you think slowing the economy down would look like in practice?

Follow on Bluesky | Subscribe on Substack

A Reflection on Geopolitics in 2025

Greenland’s True Size

When Donald Trump expressed unhealthy interest in buying Greenland, a friend suggested an alternative: Greenland could become Canada’s fourth territory. Unlike the U.S., Greenland is only a few kilometers from Canada and shares linguistic, cultural, and colonial histories with Canada’s Inuit. A land claim agreement like Nunavut’s could be arranged. He speculated that Russia, China, and the U.S. might support such a move since it would prevent any one of them from establishing a military base while ensuring passage rights for all.

I dismissed the idea. As far as I knew, Greenland had no interest in joining another country. The matter was not open for discussion unless Greenland itself initiated it. My friend agreed. His intention was simply to explore Greenland’s options in the face of external threats.

He then noted that Greenland is not as large as some believe. The Mercator projection on maps exaggerates landmasses near the poles, making Greenland appear immense, comparable in size to Africa when Africa is actually 14 times larger. Similar distortions occur making northern landmasses like the U.S., Canada, and Russia seem much larger than they are. On a globe, Greenland’s proportions are accurate—perhaps Trump would back off if he looked at one!

Finding a Globe

I hadn’t seen a globe in years—a spherical model of Earth, something I can hold in my hands. Unlike digital maps, globes depict landmasses and bodies of water without distortion. Some even feature raised relief for mountains and other landforms.

Globes have largely fallen out of use, replaced by digital maps, GPS, and interactive tools like Google Earth. Digital alternatives are accessible on smartphones, offering real-time updates, zoom functions, and satellite imagery. Paper maps and screens are also more practical for daily use, while globes are bulky, static, and quickly outdated as political boundaries shift.

I could have ordered a globe online, but Amazon represents everything wrong with globalization—cheap manufacturing, exploitative labor, retail collapse, dopamine-fueled shopping, warehouse abuses, gig economy logistics, and Jeff Bezos growing ever wealthier. Instead, I asked around. A friend directed me to Rupert Treasures, a local second-hand shop. The clerk said that they had a beautiful globe on a stand but it had just sold. He suggested a nearby antiques shop, and it had three, all labeled in French. I bought one for $20.

My callout for a globe inspired more offers. My sister-in-law offered to mail me a children’s globe with a digital pen. Another friend gifted me an old family globe still showing the USSR.

Russia and Ukraine

On the older globe, the Soviet Union appears as one massive yellow landmass. In 1991, its dissolution created fifteen independent countries, the largest being Russia. On my newer globe, Russia is in green and about three-quarters the size of the former USSR. Ukraine, much smaller—about 1/28 the size of Russia—is a purple landmass bordering the Black Sea and Europe.

There is no universal standard for globe colors, but I noted that Greenland is green on both globes.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was framed as a strategic move to reclaim influence, prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and secure economic and military interests. But I wonder if there is a simpler motive—an obsession with size. Putin may struggle to accept Russia as smaller than the USSR. This fixation on expansion has fueled colonialism throughout history.

Israel and Palestine

Locating Israel was a challenge—it is small on the globe. It borders Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, with the Mediterranean to the west. Palestine was even harder to find. It exists within Israel’s borders, encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but looking at the globe, it’s as if Palestine doesn’t exist at all. Unlike digital maps, where one can zoom in, a globe presents only the dominant geopolitical reality.

The erasure of Palestine from maps mirrors its physical erasure. Under occupation, its land is continuously taken, its people struggling for survival. The world often looks away.

Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America?

The Gulf of Mexico, a vast ocean basin, is bordered by the U.S., Mexico, and Cuba. It supports industries like oil, gas, fishing, and shipping, with major rivers, such as the Mississippi, feeding into it. Its warm waters also make it a breeding ground for hurricanes that shape North American weather patterns.

In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”—a symbolic assertion of U.S. dominance. Critics argued the move strained U.S.-Mexico relations and had little international legitimacy. Still, major U.S. tech companies, including Google and Apple, updated their maps for American users while keeping the original name for the rest of the world.

Canada’s Borders

Canada, my home, is the world’s second-largest country at 9.98 million square kilometers. On my globe, its ten provinces are clearly labeled, but only two of its three territories are shown. Nunavut became a territory in 1999, part of the largest Indigenous land claim settlement in Canadian history, granting Inuit greater self-governance. Modern globes now show Nunavut as separate, right next to Greenland.

Canada’s borders have been shaped by conflict and negotiation. The War of 1812 repelled a U.S. invasion. The Alaska Boundary Dispute tested sovereignty. Quebec’s separatist referendums in 1980 and 1995 nearly broke the country apart. While Canada’s borders are now settled, internal divisions over land, identity, and federalism persist.

Trump’s threats of tariffs and suggestions that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state have only strengthened Canadian nationalism. Even Indigenous leaders and Quebec separatists, often at odds with federal policies, have united in rejecting foreign interference. If anything, Trump’s bluster has reinforced Canada’s independence.

The Overview Effect

The globe felt good in my hands. My first moments holding it gave me a surreal sense of the Overview Effect, a cognitive shift astronauts experience when viewing Earth from space—awe, heightened awareness of the planet’s fragility, and a deepened connection to humanity. Frank White coined the term in 1987, though earlier accounts exist. Yuri Gagarin described a profound connection to Earth in 1961, and Edgar Mitchell reported an “explosion of awareness” during Apollo 14 in 1971.

Holding a globe in my hands, I also felt something unsettling. If the globe was Earth, who was I, a god in space? Did holding it mean control? Could I spin it like Superman, deciding fate? Some people crave this power. The Overview Effect is often celebrated as positive, but it reflects extreme privilege. Few can access space, making it an exclusive perspective that may create distance rather than connection. This perspective can be dangerous. Colonialists, imperialists, and globalists have often viewed the world as something to be possessed and reshaped.

Conclusion

A globe offers more than a visual aid; it provides perspective. It corrects distortions in our understanding of size and space. It reveals the geopolitical reality of nations at war. It reminds us of the fragility of borders and the forces that shape them. It prompts questions about power, nationalism, and colonialism.

Follow on Bluesky | Subscribe on Substack

The Weaponization of Journalism and Social Media in Canadian Politics

Canada’s media landscape is embattled, with traditional journalism under attack and social media increasingly weaponized by political interests. As the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, seeks to defund the CBC and eliminate funding for local journalism, the country faces critical questions about the future of news, democracy, and informed citizenship. At the same time, government attempts to regulate digital platforms, such as the Online News Act, have been met with resistance from tech giants like Meta. The battle over who controls information in Canada is not just about policy—it is about the fundamental nature of political discourse and democracy in an era of rapid technological change.

The Global Village and Frayed Nerves

Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the global village envisions a world interconnected by electronic media, where distance and time shrink, and people experience events simultaneously. He saw mass communication as an extension of human senses, dissolving national and cultural boundaries to create a shared consciousness. However, McLuhan warned that interconnectedness would not necessarily lead to harmony but could amplify tensions as diverse perspectives collide in real time.

McLuhan compared the global village to a nervous system—just as nerves transmit signals throughout the body, media technologies create an instantaneous network of communication, making events in one place immediately felt elsewhere. This heightened collective awareness increases sensitivity to shocks, conflicts, and disruptions, reinforcing McLuhan’s warning that hyper-connectivity does not guarantee unity; it can overstimulate and fray the nerves of entire societies.

The Fractured Media Landscape

In 2025, we are overwhelmed by a deluge of information on crises: rising costs of living, homelessness, humanitarian disasters in Gaza, Congo, Sudan, and Yemen, the resurgence of fascism, and an accelerating climate crisis. Our human nervous systems are frayed.

Reliable journalism could help manage the stress, but media itself is transforming. At each technological leap, political powers have undermined journalism, favoring neoliberalism and fascism. One wonders if our capacity for knowledge is causing as much trouble as it solves. Awareness prevents crimes in the dark, yet unfiltered and manipulated information inflames division. A mix is optimal—selectively reading good sources, taking breaks, and processing information before deciding on action.

The Erosion of Journalism

When social media first emerged in the early 2000s, it was heralded as a democratizing force. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube enabled global communication, empowering grassroots activism. The Arab Spring in 2011 was a key example of this potential, as social media helped protesters organize and bypass state-controlled narratives.

Yet Web 2.0 significantly undermined traditional journalism. Newspapers, television, and radio, once the primary sources of news, operated with editorial standards and business models based on subscriptions and advertising. The rise of free, fast, and engaging news on social media diverted advertising revenue away from traditional outlets, leading to layoffs, closures, and the decline of investigative reporting. Anyone could publish content, making misinformation rampant.

Canada’s Response: The Online News Act

In 2023, Canada passed the Online News Act (Bill C-18), requiring tech giants like Meta and Google to compensate publishers for using their content. Meta refused and blocked Canadian news on its platforms, but Google ultimately complied. This legislation was just the first step in Canada’s broader strategy to regulate online media.

Other initiatives followed, including the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), which updated broadcasting regulations for digital media, and the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), which sought to address hate speech, extremism, and child exploitation. However, only Bill C-11 was enacted; others stalled or died with Parliament’s prorogation in 2025.

Poilievre’s Attack on Journalism

Pierre Poilievre opposes the Online News Act, calling it a government-mandated subsidy for failing mainstream media. He pledges to repeal the law and cut $1 billion in federal funding to the CBC, effectively defunding its English-language services. He also plans to eliminate funding for the Local Journalism Initiative, which supports reporting in underserved communities.

Attacking mainstream media is a standard right-wing tactic. By portraying the press as biased and corrupt, politicians erode trust in independent journalism, making space for right-wing media that amplifies their messaging unchallenged. This fosters an “us versus them” mentality, where negative coverage is dismissed as propaganda. It also pressures mainstream outlets to self-censor or give undue weight to conservative viewpoints, shifting public discourse in favor of the right.

The Weaponization of Social Media

Poilievre, like other populists, prefers social media over traditional journalism. He relies on YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram to bypass media scrutiny and communicate directly with supporters through highly produced videos and live streams. He engages with alternative and right-wing media, reinforcing narratives that align with his views.

Far-right movements have weaponized social media, exploiting algorithms that amplify outrage and misinformation. These platforms facilitate radicalization, conspiracy theories, and distrust in democratic institutions. The January 6th U.S. Capitol riot exemplifies how social media can mobilize violence.

Elon Musk’s takeover of X has bolstered Donald Trump. Musk reinstated Trump’s account, endorsed his campaign, and relaxed content moderation policies. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta followed suit, eliminating third-party fact-checking and replacing it with a “Community Notes” system, mirroring Musk’s approach. These changes align with conservative interests, raising concerns about the spread of misinformation and the erosion of democratic discourse.

The Shift to Web 3.0

Web 2.0’s social media is fading as Web 3.0 transforms media consumption and production. Traditional platforms like Facebook and Twitter are losing influence to AI-driven content models, which automate news aggregation and content moderation. Media is shifting from mass broadcasting to AI-curated, user-controlled ecosystems. This decentralization may empower individuals, but it also risks amplifying misinformation and increasing the role of anonymous dark money in politics.

Canada had introduced several Web 3.0-related bills, including the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (Bill C-26) to strengthen cybersecurity, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (Bill C-27) to regulate AI, and the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) to address harmful content. However, with the prorogation of Parliament in January 2025, these bills were terminated. Future efforts will need to reintroduce legislation to address cybersecurity, digital privacy, and online safety.

Staying Politically Conscious

As we navigate an era of media upheaval and political uncertainty, it is more crucial than ever to remain engaged and discerning. The flood of information can be overwhelming, but disengagement is not an option. Instead, we must cultivate media literacy, seek out reliable sources, and critically evaluate the narratives shaping public discourse. Supporting independent journalism, advocating for transparent media regulations, and holding politicians accountable are tangible ways to counter misinformation and protect democratic values.

The challenges are significant, but history shows that societies adapt and innovate in response to media transformations. The tools of digital connectivity, when wielded responsibly, still offer opportunities for positive change—fostering global awareness, mobilizing grassroots action, and amplifying marginalized voices. The future of information is uncertain, but our collective vigilance and commitment to truth will determine whether the global village strengthens democracy or succumbs to division.

Follow on Bluesky | Subscribe on Substack

Understanding the Evolution of Political Labels and Their Implications for Voting

The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” have shifted so radically that they may no longer represent what you think they do. Over time, economic and social changes have altered the meaning of these political labels, leading to overlap and confusion. In this essay, I revisit these terms and argue that political parties, regardless of their labels, have shifted drastically to the right. Voting Liberal today is akin to voting Conservative, and voting Conservative increasingly aligns with far-right, even fascist, ideologies. While the United States may already be lost to this shift, Canada’s vote might still moderate the tide.

The term “liberal” encompasses a broad philosophy emphasizing individual freedoms, democracy, and equality. Classical liberalism focuses on free markets, while modern liberalism advocates for social justice and government intervention. “Liberal” (capitalized), however, refers to specific parties like Canada’s Liberal Party, which selectively apply these principles based on pragmatic goals.

Similarly, “conservative” describes a philosophy of tradition, stability, and cautious change. It values institutions, cultural heritage, and individual responsibility. “Conservative” (capitalized), as in the Conservative Party of Canada, represents an entity that shapes its policies through a mix of ideology and political strategy.

Both terms are fluid and context-dependent. In North America, liberalism is often conflated with left-wing politics, yet its classical roots emphasize free markets and limited government. Similarly, conservatism’s alignment with right-wing values overlooks its potential to support interventionist policies when they serve tradition and stability.

Over time, neoliberalism has heavily influenced political parties across the spectrum. Advocating free markets, deregulation, and privatization, neoliberalism prioritizes economic efficiency over social equity. Liberals and Conservatives alike have embraced these policies, blurring traditional divides. This shift has exacerbated inequality and weakened public institutions, as Liberal policies increasingly resemble conservative economic priorities.

Meanwhile, segments of Conservative and Republican parties have shifted toward far-right ideologies, embracing populism, nationalism, and authoritarianism. This includes “us vs. them” rhetoric targeting immigrants, and minorities, alongside a focus on centralized power, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. These trends echo historical patterns of fascism, raising serious concerns for democracy and pluralism.

In contrast, truly left-wing ideologies prioritize equality, collective welfare, and systemic change. They challenge entrenched hierarchies and capitalist structures through wealth redistribution, public ownership, and labor rights. In Canada, however, parties like the NDP and Greens fall short of these goals, working instead within capitalist frameworks with centrist strategies.

As political landscapes shift, I reflect deeply on my vote each election. Over the years, I’ve supported most political parties. By day, practicality inclines me toward Liberal, NDP, or Green policies. By night, I identify with far-left values, unaffiliated with any party. How do we reconcile these contradictions? One approach is voting locally, disregarding party ideologies and focusing on candidates’ direct impacts. If enough voters did this, it could shift the questions asked and influence federal politics.

The shift to the far right is disturbing. Change doesn’t require a majority, just a strong minority of voters to light the way. Think critically about your vote—it matters more than ever.

Follow on Bluesky | Subscribe on Substack

Fostering solidarity builds empathy, shared responsibility, and lays the groundwork for lasting change

Voting is the least effective way to make real change. It’s passive, constrained, and often an excuse to avoid deeper engagement. True transformation requires action beyond the ballot box, climbing the hierarchy of political engagement to methods that disrupt, rebuild, and reimagine the systems we live in. Let’s explore five groups of actions, ranked from least to most effective.

Institutional Politics

This sits at the bottom of the hierarchy. While necessary to maintain democratic systems, voting is a limited tool. Casting a ballot every few years does little to address systemic issues or drive transformative change. Marginally more impactful is running for office or supporting alternative candidates, which allows individuals to influence policy agendas directly. Yet, even this is constrained by the slow-moving nature of institutional systems.

Awareness and Advocacy

This represents the next level. Change begins with educating and raising awareness. Sharing knowledge through writing, speaking, or social media can inspire others to act, creating the foundation for collective movements. Advocating for policy builds on this awareness, directly influencing decision-makers through lobbying, public hearings, or collaboration with organizations. These methods are crucial but rely on engaging an informed audience and willing policymakers.

Economic and Local Leverage

These methods target power structures more directly. Practicing economic activism—such as boycotting harmful industries, supporting ethical businesses, or pushing for systemic reforms—redirects resources to align with values. Meanwhile, influencing local decisions through community boards, city councils, or planning committees allows individuals to shape policies that directly affect their lives. These methods often yield tangible results with ripple effects beyond their immediate scope.

Direct Engagement

This moves beyond working within the system to disrupt and reimagine it. Protests, strikes, and civil disobedience draw attention to critical issues and force responses from those in power. Even more transformative is creating alternative institutions, such as cooperatives, mutual aid networks, or independent media. These efforts model new ways of living and working, providing practical alternatives to flawed systems.

Transformative Cultural Change

This operates at the deepest level. Fostering solidarity builds empathy and a sense of shared responsibility, laying the groundwork for unified action. Building coalitions amplifies this power, bringing together diverse groups to tackle systemic problems. These cultural shifts challenge the underlying assumptions of society and create the momentum needed for lasting change.

Real transformation happens when we climb the ladder of engagement, moving beyond the passive act of voting to take meaningful action. The most effective methods—solidarity, coalition-building, and direct engagement—redefine the systems we live in. The question isn’t just where to start but how far you’re willing to go to make a difference.

Follow on Bluesky | Subscribe on Substack

Political dynamics in the U.S. are unpredictable and subject to change with elections. Climate change is an enduring challenge that will define Canada’s environment, economy, and society for generations.

In the 2025 Canadian election, climate change is more important than Trump’s threats on tariffs and sovereignty because the consequences are immediate, existential, and touch every facet of Canadian life. While economic and sovereignty issues are undeniably significant, climate change represents a far more urgent challenge that will shape the nation’s future in profound and irreversible ways.

The effects of climate change are already deeply felt across Canada. Wildfires, floods, and extreme weather events are not abstract concerns but lived experiences for millions of Canadians. The wildfire smoke that blanketed cities in 2023, the catastrophic flooding in British Columbia, and the intensifying heatwaves have caused billions in damages, displaced communities, and strained public resources. These disasters are direct manifestations of a warming planet, forcing voters to confront the necessity of immediate action. Unlike tariffs or sovereignty disputes, which may fluctuate with political cycles, the impacts of climate change are cumulative and compounding, leaving little room for delay.

Canada’s response to the Los Angeles wildfires demonstrates its value beyond trade, fostering goodwill among Americans. This will encourage Americans to resist policies or rhetoric from Trump that threaten Canada’s sovereignty.

Canada’s response to the Los Angeles wildfires demonstrates its value beyond trade, fostering goodwill among Americans

Climate action is central to Canada’s economic future. The global economy is transitioning toward renewables and sustainable industries. While tariffs imposed by the U.S. could strain trade relationships, Canada’s economic vulnerability to climate inaction is even greater. A failure to invest in renewable energy, electrification, and sustainable technologies could render the nation economically stagnant, while proactive policies could spur innovation, create millions of green jobs, and secure Canada’s position in an evolving global market. Addressing climate change isn’t just an environmental necessity—it’s an economic imperative.

Trump’s threats on tariffs and sovereignty, though provocative, reflect a familiar pattern of political posturing. Canada has weathered similar disputes in the past, including the NAFTA renegotiations, and emerged with its core trade relationships intact. These challenges are pressing but manageable within the existing framework of diplomacy and trade negotiations. Climate change, by contrast, transcends borders and defies traditional solutions. Its global scale demands unprecedented cooperation and decisive national leadership, making it a more complex and demanding issue than even the most contentious trade disputes.

In addition, the climate crisis encompasses issues of justice and equity that resonate deeply with Canadian voters. Indigenous communities, who often live on the frontlines of environmental change, face disproportionate risks to their health, livelihoods, and cultural heritage. These concerns intersect with broader debates about reconciliation and fairness in ways that amplify the political importance of climate action. Sovereignty, while critical, does not carry the same level of moral urgency or existential risk as the collapse of ecosystems or the displacement of vulnerable populations.

Finally, Canada’s role on the global stage further elevates climate as the defining issue of 2025. As a G7 nation and a major emitter, Canada has a responsibility to lead in meeting international climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While trade and sovereignty are significant, they do not carry the same level of global consequence as failing to act on climate change. The world is watching, and Canada’s choices in this election will signal its priorities and values to the international community.

In the long view, Trump’s threats, however immediate and concerning, are transient. Political dynamics in the U.S. are unpredictable and subject to change with elections. Climate change, however, is an enduring challenge that will define Canada’s environment, economy, and society for generations. It is not just an issue for the 2025 election—it is the issue of our time. For Canadian voters, addressing the climate crisis is not merely about protecting the present but securing a livable and prosperous future.

Subscribe on Substack | Follow on Bluesky

Will Canada follow the United States in a shift to the right, or will it preserve its values of modesty, tolerance, and community-mindedness?

January 6 is associated with the U.S. Capitol insurrection, but this year it marked a significant event in Canadian politics. Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister.

Politics has always intrigued me, though I write about it sparingly. Over time, I have become more invested in broader themes, such as psychology and spirituality. I see spirituality as a deeper framework shaping how conservatives and liberals process the world—an outlook that informs their values, priorities, and responses to political challenges. In this series, I begin with Trudeau’s resignation and then examine key issues in Canadian politics, explaining how conservatives and liberals think and feel about them differently. My hope is that this explanation can illuminate areas of common ground and foster greater civility.

Leaders rarely relinquish power willingly. The events of January 6, 2021, in the United States demonstrated this, as Donald Trump orchestrated an effort to overturn the election results. In 2024, Joe Biden initially resisted stepping aside from his re-election campaign. As I previously wrote: “After five decades in politics, Biden’s confidence was unshaken. Having defeated Trump once, he was intent on doing it again, despite his age and performance in debates.” Biden’s colleagues—Schumer, Pelosi, Obama—intervened, urging him to step down. Biden held out for more than three weeks, asserting that only the “Lord Almighty” could get him to drop out. Eventually, he relented. He stepped aside and endorsed Kamala Harris. While it did not ultimately secure a Democratic victory, Biden’s actions exemplified humility and pragmatism, contrasting sharply with Trump’s approach.

In Trudeau’s case, humility was less evident. Mounting internal pressure began in October when 24 MPs signed a letter urging his resignation. The tipping point came with Chrystia Freeland’s resignation. Freeland, a standout member of Trudeau’s team, had skillfully managed critical files, including trade negotiations with the Trump administration. However, her removal before the current round of talks raised questions. Her departure stunned the nation, intensifying calls for Trudeau to step down.

Trudeau’s resignation speech was brief and lacked introspection. He blamed his departure on internal conflicts within the party and did not acknowledge personal missteps. Regarding Freeland, he hinted at private disagreements, suggesting a narrative different from hers. This lack of self-awareness stood in stark contrast to Biden’s exit.

I considered other explanations for Trudeau’s stubbornness. He may have hoped to observe developments in the U.S. elections before finalizing his strategy. Perhaps he intended a late switch to a new leader to catch the Conservatives off guard. Maybe he planned to go down with the Liberal ship, avoiding another Kim Campbell 2.0 disaster. Such deliberations are often revealed only years later in political memoirs.

Trudeau prorogued Parliament until March 24, providing the Liberals with time to organize a leadership vote. A new leader will be announced on March 9, just ahead of a likely non-confidence vote and a spring election. Current polling suggests a Conservative landslide.

The stakes are high. Issues such as climate change, trade relations with the U.S., housing, and the cost of living dominate public discourse. Other topics, including the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs, gun control, gender equity, and electoral reform, could emerge as pivotal during the campaign. These issues reflect deeper ideological divides between conservatives and liberals, rooted in how each group perceives and prioritizes challenges.

Psychology and spirituality play a role in shaping these perceptions. Conservatives often emphasize order, tradition, and personal responsibility, grounded in a worldview that sees individuals as navigating a world of inherent risk. Liberals, by contrast, may prioritize collective solutions, progress, and empathy, reflecting a belief in human potential and interconnectedness. These differences are not merely political; they represent distinct spiritual outlooks on life. Recognizing this can help us move beyond polarization to a place of mutual understanding.

How these issues unfold will shape Canada’s future. Will the country follow the United States in a shift to the right, or will it preserve its values of modesty, tolerance, and community-mindedness? In this series, I will explore how conservative and liberal mindsets influence their views on critical issues and propose ways to find common ground. By understanding the emotional and spiritual factors that drive their values, we can foster a more civil and constructive political discourse.

Subscribe on Substack | Follow on Bluesky

Do Not Make Us Come Down There

When Joe Biden endorsed Kamala Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination, she quickly gained momentum. Grassroots groups like Black Women for Harris, Win with Black Women, and Black Girls Vote organized a Zoom call that drew 44,000 participants, raised $1.4 million USD, and recruited 10,000 new volunteers. This surge of support kicked off a series of advocacy groups for Harris, from Women for Harris to Men for Harris—and even Republicans for Harris.

While there is no official Canadians for Harris group, she has the backing of myself and many other Canadians. Although we cannot vote or donate, we are closely following her campaign, discussing it with our American friends, and urging them to vote. A Harris victory would be symbolically significant as she would become both the first woman and the first Black South Asian president. She supports progressive policies on women’s rights, climate action, and economic reform—issues that also affect Canada. Plus, she has a personal connection to Canada, having lived in Montreal during her youth. A win for Harris would resonate with many Canadians.

Voting Has Become Harder

I have been engaged in politics for decades. I have voted in every election since I was eighteen and have always encouraged others to do the same. But over the past two decades, voting has become increasingly difficult. Social media’s rise and traditional journalism’s decline have led to the spread of disinformation, shaping and polarizing voters’ opinions. Climate change has struggled to capture the public’s attention, with many politicians either hesitating to introduce progressive policies or actively campaigning against them. It is hard to vote when all politicians seem the same, endlessly discussing economic growth while the environment collapses around us. A so-called “green economy” is still a capitalist one, structured to benefit the wealthy.

Harris and the Democrats are branded as radical leftists by their opponents, but to many Canadians, all American politicians appear right-wing. The Democrats are more educated and secular compared to the conspiracy-driven, religious Republicans, but both are still right-leaning. Democrats are more libertarian when it comes to women’s autonomy over their bodies, while Republicans are more libertarian on gun rights, yet neither party fully addresses the most critical issues. People do not get the chance to vote on the things that really matter. They do not get to vote on whether military profiteering and wars should continue. They do not get to vote on whether billionaires should exist while so many people struggle to survive.

Harris and the Democrats are branded as radical leftists by their opponents, but to many Canadians, all American politicians appear right-wing

Similar patterns exist in so-called left-wing Canada. Our Liberal government introduced a reasonable carbon tax but then also built new oil pipelines. Our Conservative opposition would scrap the carbon tax and boost oil production. The New Democratic Party (NDP) offers only modest relief to those enduring environmental collapse. Each election, it becomes harder to find a compelling reason to vote.

Voting for Harris Is Hard

I have reservations about Harris. During the presidential debate, Harris was poised, articulate, and well-prepared with facts and reasoned arguments. However, she often felt heavily scripted, repeating talking points about her middle-class upbringing, giving little opportunity to hear her speak off-the-cuff. This is true of many politicians—they play it safe.

Harris panders to the right. We have heard numerous times that she owns a Glock and enjoys shooting it at the range, reassuring the right that she will not take away their guns. She highlights her endorsement from Dick Cheney. Remember Cheney’s role as vice president during the Iraq War and his support for torture? Harris also flipped on her stance on fracking to win Pennsylvania.

The most troubling issue is Gaza. With reports of 40,000 civilians killed—primarily women and children—allegations of sexual violence by Israeli forces, and the war expanding into Lebanon and other nearby countries, global attention is desperately needed. Yet, what we get from Harris is a script: Israel has the right to defend itself, the suffering is terrible, we need a ceasefire deal. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration just sent billions in new military funding. The only presidential candidate standing against the genocide is Jill Stein of the Green Party, who has no chance of winning or making a significant impact.

Voting for Harris Is Harm Reduction

I dislike strategic voting, the practice of voting for a candidate you do not fully support just to avoid splitting the vote and electing someone worse. I have often voted for the Canadian Green Party despite the risk of inadvertently helping the Conservative candidate win. I value voting on principle.

Yet, I would vote strategically for Harris to avoid the greater risk of a Trump victory. That is my most pressing concern. In 2016, Trump was already known to be a self-serving, misogynistic liar. By 2024, he is a bankrupt, vindictive felon. A second Trump presidency poses even graver dangers. With Roe v. Wade overturned, a federal abortion ban looms. Trump’s refusal to reform border policies worsened the immigration crisis, and mass deportations could be enforced with military power. He could weaponize the president’s office for personal vengeance and perpetual power, and he may form an alliance with Russia.

Some argue that democracy is failing, that it exists to serve capitalism, and that capitalism will never address the climate crisis. The collapse of civilization, they say, is already in progress. Perhaps, they suggest, a Trump-like win is inevitable, and the entire system must crumble for humanity to rebuild. But a Trump win now would cause immense suffering. A Harris win would at least slow the collapse and reduce that suffering. Voting for Harris is an act of harm reduction.

Do Not Make Us Come Down There

Here in Canada, we expect our own federal election in 2025, and the U.S. election feels like a preview. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are faltering in the polls after years in office, and he may soon face pressure from within his party to step down, much like Biden. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader is dubbed “Trump North” for his populist rhetoric, attacks on the media, and right-wing base.

My American neighbors, we Canadians do not want another Trump presidency. Do not make us come down there. Do the right thing: vote for Harris. Once Trump is soundly defeated, hold Harris accountable on urgent issues like Gaza, the growing war, and the dire need for climate action.

Subscribe to my Essays on Substack

Image generated by DeepAI

His Rhetorical Style is Reminiscent of a Country Preacher

How Does Donald Trump Do It?

Donald Trump shocked the world when he won the U.S. presidency in 2016. His defeat in 2020 left many hopeful that his political influence would fade. Yet here he is in 2024, in strong contention for the presidency. Initially, the MAGA campaign pummeled Joe Biden in the polls. When Kamala Harris took his place, she was buoyed by an outpouring of donations and endorsements. She pulled into the lead in August. Still, outspending Trump by tens of millions and even pulling in Republican endorsements, her lead remains tenuous—no greater than four percentage points. Trump winning in November is a real possibility.

It’s baffling to many how Trump has maintained his political popularity. In 2016, he was already criticized for being self-serving, misogynistic, and dishonest. By 2024, he’s a bankrupt, vindictive felon. A second Trump presidency poses even graver risks: with Roe v. Wade overturned, a federal abortion ban is a looming possibility; his defeat of border security reforms exacerbated the immigration crisis; and mass deportations may be enforced using military power. His administration could weaponize the president’s office for personal vengeance and perpetual power, He may form an alliance with Russia. Democracy will be corrupted.  

So, why would anyone vote for Trump? To understand, we need to explore the feelings of alienation and discontent among his supporters—a backlash rooted in a culture war of the 21st century. Trump taps into this with remarkable skill, using old-world communication patterns that resonate deeply with his base.

Strangers in Their Own Land

A useful lens for understanding Trump’s appeal comes from Arlie Russell Hochschild’s book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2018). A liberal sociologist from Berkeley, Hochschild spent five years in conservative Louisiana, listening to the grievances of right-leaning Americans.

I relate to Hochschild’s findings. My background shares some similarities with the Louisianans she studied. I come from a large, low-income, Christian family. I remember the resentment of taxes. It makes some sense because this population preferred to give to others though their churches. Unfortunately, churches cannot scale to address global problems like climate change.

The environment is the key paradox Hochschild addresses throughout her book. Louisiana, one of the most polluted states, is also strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Across the U.S., states with higher exposure to pollution tend to lean Republican. Why? Less regulation may bring short-term job gains, but long-term pollution is destroying their land and health. Louisianans, like many others, seem numb to this damage. There’s a failure to see that green jobs could also sustain their communities.

Education, or lack thereof, plays a role here. Beyond formal degrees, education teaches critical thinking and how to assess information. Fox News, while a popular source, cannot be the only source. With the collapse of traditional journalism, a vacuum has formed, allowing disinformation to thrive. Hochschild describes this as a “deep story” of resentment—where people feel left behind and insulted by stereotypes of “rednecks” or “white trash.” Self-reliant and proud, these individuals feel alienated from a world they no longer recognize, as if they are “strangers in their own land.”

A Culture War

The 21st century brings rapid and unsettling change. The global population has surpassed eight billion. Climate change threatens ecosystems, food supplies, and health. Economic inequality is deepening social unrest. Pandemics have strained healthcare systems, and technological advances, while beneficial, are also reshaping jobs, creating disinformation, and undermining trust. Amid these shifts, some people envision a future of environmental sustainability, social justice, and economic equality. Others long for a simpler, more familiar past—a world they believe worked better for them.

This conflict between progress and nostalgia is the heart of the culture war. It pits left against right, progressives against conservatives, diversity against patriarchy. While change is inevitable, it stirs anxiety, especially among those who feel they are losing ground. The old guard is lashing back, and they’re not alone—many others sympathize with their discontent.

Trump’s Old-World Communication Style

One of Trump’s strengths in this culture war is his ability to connect with those nostalgic for the past. His rhetorical style is reminiscent of a country preacher, relying on emotion and simplicity to resonate with his base.

In the presidential debate, Harris was poised, articulate, and well-prepared with facts and reasoned arguments. But how much of what she said was memorable? Trump, on the other hand, broke the internet with his absurd claim about people eating pets. This may have seemed ridiculous to many, but it dominated the conversation. Trump’s appeal lies in his ability to bypass intellectual objections with repetition and emotional appeals—techniques well-honed in oral traditions.

In Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong explains how oral cultures used repetition, cliché, and aggregation to ensure ideas were memorable and passed down. Trump employs these same tactics, making him a master of old-world communication in a modern context. While Harris’s intellectual rigor appeals to the literate, Trump’s emotive rhetoric strikes a chord with those who prefer storytelling and simple narratives.

Trump Remains a Real Threat in November

As November approaches, enthusiasm for Harris is high, but Trump remains a real threat. His base won’t be easily swayed by facts or policy arguments. To reduce that risk, we must recognize the emotional and cultural appeal that Trump has to his supporters. Engaging with them on a personal level, outside of the MAGA echo chamber, could reveal more common ground than we expect. As Hochschild observed in Louisiana, people are often kinder and more generous than their politics suggest.

Subscribe to my Essays on Substack

Not a literal cyborg, but a human leader elevated and elected through the new media landscape of Web 3.0

Cats have oddly found themselves at the center of the Republican bid for the 2024 presidential election. First, it was J.D. Vance, who criticized Democrats as “childless cat ladies.” Then, it was Donald Trump, who falsely accused immigrants of eating dogs and cats during a debate. This fixation on cats aligns with Trump’s rise through social media—a realm where facts are flexible, misinformation spreads quickly, and cats are undeniably popular (recall the phenomenon of “I Can Has Cheezburger?”).

It seems distant now, but in the early 1990s, the web consisted mainly of static websites that could only be updated by programmers—what we now refer to as Web 1.0. Back then, people relied on traditional media and authoritative news sources that adhered to fact-checking standards. Presidents like George Bush and Bill Clinton were elected through traditional means and media.

By the mid-2000s, the web transitioned to Web 2.0, characterized by interactive, user-generated content and social networking. Suddenly, everyone was participating online. Cats, dinner pictures, and selfies dominated platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. The Democrats quickly adopted social media for campaigning and fundraising, culminating in Barack Obama becoming the first “social media president” in 2008.

While social media democratized content creation, it also challenged traditional journalism. Fast, free news from “citizen journalists” replaced more credible sources, and sensationalism often ranked higher than accuracy. Misinformation and disinformation flourished, with the 2016 U.S. election becoming a glaring example. The Russian government interfered with the election through hacking and disinformation campaigns aimed at sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and boosting Trump’s. Trump, in turn, became the second “social media president.”

By 2020, governments had enforced identity verification for political ads on social platforms, and people became incrementally savvier in media literacy. Joe Biden won the 2020 presidency, and Kamala Harris now appears poised to win in November of this year.

Around the mid-2010s, the web began evolving once again. Web 3.0 introduces another fundamental shift in how we interact with information, characterized by the rise of distributed computing and artificial intelligence. While its full impact on culture, media, and politics remains uncertain, there are three likely outcomes:

1. Enhanced Digital Identity: Improved digital identity systems will secure personal data and permissions, increasing privacy and data portability. This could reduce the misuse of personal data for political targeting and limit mass disinformation attacks as people move away from social media giants.
2. Decentralized Computing: The decentralization of computing will disrupt traditional news and financial channels, changing how people learn about politics and fund political campaigns.
3. Artificial Intelligence in Decision-Making: AI will increasingly assist people with cognitive tasks, facilitating more trustworthy research and informed voting decisions.

Kamala Harris could soon become the first woman—and the first Black and South Asian American—to be president. As Web 2.0 continues to falter under the weight of disinformation and a toxic culture, Trump may well be remembered as the last “social media president.” But who will be the first “AI president?” Not a literal cyborg, but a human leader elevated and elected through the new media landscape of Web 3.0. Perhaps we will find out by 2028 or 2032.

Update 2024-10-03. TrumpGPT – John Miedema. This may answer the question. 😉

Subscribe to my essays on Substack