Nicolas: Mode survie

Realism:

…Remarquez, je ne cherche pas ici à encenser ou à critiquer les limites du phénomène, je cherche plutôt à le comprendre. Visiblement, les Canadiens rejoignent maintenant les Américains, les Français et les Allemands parmi les peuples qui ont, dans la dernière année, appréhendé les options politiques qu’on leur présente à partir de leur instinct de survie.

Je ne vois pas comment analyser autrement l’effondrement des appuis néodémocrates, alors que les libéraux se repositionnent vers la droite, ou les difficultés du Bloc québécois devant un leader libéral dont le français reste parfois laborieux. Il ne s’agit pas ici d’un amour particulier pour Mark Carney, mais d’un mouvement ABC (Anything But Conservative, n’importe qui sauf les conservateurs) qui n’a pas de leader, pas d’organisation, qui ne dit pas son nom, mais qui semble d’une efficacité historique pour centraliser les intentions de vote… j’allais dire progressistes, mais entendons-nous pour « non conservatrices », au pays.

Même lorsque Poilievre ne parle pas de Trump et se drape du drapeau canadien, certains des thèmes que les conservateurs choisissent d’évoquer, du fentanyl aux wokes en passant par le « il n’y a que deux genres », rappellent nécessairement les discours de Trump. Et si ce ne sont pas les thèmes, alors il y a la manière hyperpartisane, abrasive envers les adversaires, ou encore contrôlante envers les journalistes, qui évoque nécessairement Donald Trump pour une partie de l’électorat canadien. Une partie de la peur populaire de Trump se déploie en peur d’un gouvernement de Pierre Poilievre. Le mouvement ABC se nourrit d’une inquiétude plus existentielle qu’à l’habitude.

Ce qu’il faut comprendre du mode survie, c’est qu’il permet… de survivre. Un modèle classique en psychologie (qui a ses limites, comme tous les modèles) est celui de la pyramide des besoins de Maslow. Tout à la base de la pyramide, il y a les besoins physiologiques (faim, soif, sommeil), puis ceux de sécurité (l’accès à un environnement stable et prévisible, sans crise à appréhender). Ensuite vient l’appartenance (le sentiment de faire partie d’un groupe), l’estime de soi (la confiance, le respect, la reconnaissance) et l’auto-actualisation (l’accès à la liberté et à l’espace créatif pour devenir la meilleure version de soi-même).

Sans établir un lien trop direct entre les besoins individuels et les dynamiques sociétales, on peut constater qu’un électorat qui opte pour la survie aura tendance à agir en fonction de ses besoins de base (le coût de l’épicerie, la capacité à se loger) et de son besoin de sécurité et de stabilité malgré la multiplication des crises. Lorsque Jagmeet Singh interpelle les électeurs progressistes en fonction de leurs valeurs communes ou qu’Yves-François Blanchet parle du refus de Mark Carney de participer au Face-à-Face de TVA comme d’un manque de respect envers les Québécois, ils font appel à des notions qui se trouvent plus loin dans la liste de priorités des gens. Certainement trop loin pour des gens qui cherchent à survivre.

Même les questionnements éthiques soulevés par certains éléments de la carrière de Mark Carney dans le milieu des affaires n’arrivent pas vraiment à retenir de manière significative l’attention des gens. Donald Trump veut détruire l’économie canadienne, la déstabilisation géopolitique s’accélère : une bonne partie de la population n’a pas accès à l’espace mental dont elle dispose habituellement pour ce genre d’actualité.

Autant s’aligner sur la survie permet parfois une forme de recentrage sur ce qui est le plus important dans nos vies, et nous permet d’apprécier sous un œil nouveau une partie de notre quotidien que l’on tenait pour acquise, autant cette stratégie annonce déjà une forme de rétrécissement de l’espace de délibération démocratique.

Personne n’est au mieux avec la stratégie de la survie. Il n’est pas question d’épanouissement, mais de faire des choix pour éviter le pire. Les critiques inefficaces, ou plutôt l’absence d’espace cognitif pour les critiques envers Mark Carney, m’apparaissent comme un symptôme d’un Canada qui s’en remet à son instinct de survie.

Si « le pire » est évité, j’espère qu’on retrouvera la capacité à aspirer au meilleur. Après avoir « choisi ses conditions de résistance », il faut après tout ne pas oublier de résister.

Source: Mode survie

… Notice, I am not trying here to praise or criticize the limits of the phenomenon, I am rather trying to understand it. Apparently, Canadians are now joining the Americans, the French and the Germans among the peoples who, in the last year, have apprehended the political options presented to them from their survival instinct.

I do not see how else to analyze the collapse of New Democratic support, while the Liberals are repositioning themselves to the right, or the difficulties of the Bloc Québécois in front of a liberal leader whose French sometimes remains laborious. This is not a particular love for Mark Carney, but an ABC (Anything But Conservative) movement that has no leader, no organization, that does not say its name, but which seems to be historically effective in centralizing voting intentions… I was going to say progressive, but let’s mean “non-conservative”, in the country.

Even when Poilievre does not talk about Trump and drapes himself with the Canadian flag, some of the themes that conservatives choose to evoke, from fentanyl to wokes to “there are only two genders”, necessarily recall Trump’s speeches. And if these are not the themes, then there is the hyperpartisan way, abrasive towards opponents, or controlling towards journalists, which necessarily evokes Donald Trump for part of the Canadian electorate. Part of Trump’s popular fear is unfolding in fear of a Pierre Poilievre government. The ABC movement feeds on a more existential concern than usual.

What must be understood about the survival mode is that it allows… to survive. A classic model in psychology (which has its limits, like all models) is that of Maslow’s pyramid of needs. At the very base of the pyramid, there are physiological needs (hunger, thirst, sleep), then those of security (access to a stable and predictable environment, without crisis to apprehend). Then comes belonging (the feeling of being part of a group), self-esteem (trust, respect, recognition) and self-actualization (access to freedom and creative space to become the best version of oneself).

Without establishing too direct a link between individual needs and societal dynamics, we can see that an electorate that opts for survival will tend to act according to its basic needs (the cost of groceries, the ability to house) and its need for security and stability despite the multiplication of crises. When Jagmeet Singh challenges progressive voters based on their common values or Yves-François Blanchet speaks of Mark Carney’s refusal to participate in the TVA Face-to-Face as a lack of respect for Quebecers, they use concepts that are further in the people’s list of priorities. Certainly too far for people looking to survive.

Even the ethical questions raised by some elements of Mark Carney’s career in the business world do not really manage to hold people’s attention in a significant way. Donald Trump wants to destroy the Canadian economy, geopolitical destabilization is accelerating: a good part of the population does not have access to the mental space it usually has for this kind of news.

As much as aligning ourselves with survival sometimes allows a form of refocusing on what is most important in our lives, and allows us to appreciate with a new eye a part of our daily life that we took for granted, this strategy already announces a form of narrowing of the space of democratic deliberation.

No one is at their best with the strategy of survival. It is not a question of fulfillment, but of making choices to avoid the worst. Ineffective criticism, or rather the lack of cognitive space for criticism of Mark Carney, appear to me to be a symptom of a Canada that relies on its survival instinct.

If “the worst” is avoided, I hope that we will regain the ability to aspire to the best. After “choosing your conditions of resistance”, you must after all not forget to resist.

Candidate nominations by party websites

Another indicator of party preparedness (as of 8 pm 23 March). Not all candidates have bio information available yet:

  • CPC: 266
  • LPC: 185
  • NDP: 111
  • Bloc: 71 (out of 78 ridings)
  • Green: 40
  • PPC: 284

Jerome Black and I are in the process of analyzing candidate diversity in terms of gender, indigenous, visible minority, religious minority, immigration history, LGBTQ and whether new or previous federal candidates.

Expect that virtually all candidates will be nominated by the end of the month that will allow us to do the initial analysis.

New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

Interesting study (similar studies could be conducted for other groups):

…Ultimately, the group’s best efforts identified about 380 Black Canadians who have run for or been elected to office, largely from the past two decades. Of those, 75 people ran federally, with former Progressive Conservative MP Lincoln Alexander’s 1968 election in Hamilton West, Ont., being the earliest such entry. But as the report highlights, Black Canadians have been involved in politics for more than 150 years, going back to Wilson Ruffin Abbott’s participation in local Toronto politics in the late 1840s and 1850s, and abolitionist and civil rights activist Abraham Doras Shadd’s election to Raleigh,Ont.’s town council in 1859.


“Part of the reason for focusing on compiling these lists and acknowledging who has run for office, and who has served is to help in that process of excavating that history and providing an archive of those contributions and those achievements to rewrite that historical record and to rewrite the narrative that Black Canadians haven’t had a long-standing and durable presence in Canadian politics,” said Tolley.
Still, Tolley stressed that the lists are not complete, and highlighted theironline call for people to submit information about individuals who may have been missed.


“That’s a really important part of the project because a lot of times in the country’s political history, Black Canadians really just don’t appear in those historical records,” she said.


Thirty-three Black Canadians who have run for or served in public office were interviewed for the project. On top of that, a survey was sent to 212 individuals across Canada, garnering 95 responses.


Survey respondents were split almost evenly by gender—with 52 per cent identifying as women,and 48 per cent as men—and 60 per cent had run for office within the past year. Of those surveyed, 45 per cent had been elected to office at some point.


The survey found a majority of respondents had run at the local level—for school boards, local or regional councils, or for mayor—while 19 per cent had run provincially, and 21 per cent federally. Local levels of government were also where a majority of respondents made their first run for office, with only 17 percent starting at the federal level.


Of the roughly 380 past candidates identified through research, a majority similarly ran or were elected at the local level, with 46 per cent of that poolhaving run for school boards or municipally, while 20 per cent ran federally.


Tolley said she suspects there’s an “element of accessibility” at play as local races don’t require the same “fundraising capacity and volunteer base that you might need to have at the federal and provincial level[s]”—two key hurdles highlighted through the survey. Tolley also noted that 52 percent of respondents cited a desire to address a policy problem as a factor that influenced them to run for office, and policy problems “might be … more evident” at the municipal level…

Source: New research explores presence, experiences of Black Canadians in politics

Brooks: The Six Principles of Stupidity

Good list:

Principle 1: Ideology produces disagreement, but stupidity produces befuddlement. This week, people in institutions across America spent a couple of days trying to figure out what the hell was going on. This is what happens when a government freezes roughly $3 trillion in spending with a two-page memo that reads like it was written by an intern. When stupidity is in control, the literature professor Patrick Moreau argues, words become unscrewed “from their relation to reality.”

Principle 2: Stupidity often inheres in organizations, not individuals. When you create an organization in which one man has all the power and everybody else has to flatter his preconceptions, then stupidity will surely result. As the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it: “This is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.”

Principle 3: People who behave stupidly are more dangerous than people who behave maliciously. Evil people at least have some accurate sense of their own self-interest, which might restrain them. Stupidity dares greatly! Stupidity already has all the answers!

Principle 4: People who behave stupidly are unaware of the stupidity of their actions. You may have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is that incompetent people don’t have the skills to recognize their own incompetence. Let’s introduce the Hegseth-Gabbard corollary: The Trump administration is attempting to remove civil servants who may or may not be progressive but who have tremendous knowledge in their field of expertise and hire MAGA loyalists who often lack domain knowledge or expertise. The results may not be what the MAGA folks hoped for.

Principle 5: Stupidity is nearly impossible to oppose. Bonhoeffer notes, “Against stupidity we are defenseless.” Because stupid actions do not make sense, they invariably come as a surprise. Reasonable arguments fall on deaf ears. Counter-evidence is brushed aside. Facts are deemed irrelevant. Bonhoeffer continues, “In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.”

Principle 6: The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence, it’s rationality. The psychologist Keith Stanovich defines rationality as the capacity to make decisions that help people achieve their objectives. People in the grip of the populist mind-set tend to be contemptuous of experience, prudence and expertise, helpful components of rationality. It turns out that this can make some populists willing to believe anything — conspiracy theories, folk tales and internet legends; that vaccines are harmful to children. They don’t live within a structured body of thought but within a rave party chaos of prejudices.

As time has gone by, I’ve developed more and more sympathy for the goals the populists are trying to achieve. America’s leadership class has spent the last few generations excluding, ignoring, rejecting and insulting a large swath of this country. It’s terrible to be assaulted in this way. It’s worse when you finally seize power and start assaulting yourself — and everyone around you. In fact, it’s stupid.

Source: The Six Principles of Stupidity

Trudeau to fill Senate vacancies before retiring: source

Diversity stats of appointments by PM (last minute senate appointments can be a poisoned chalice for governments):

…Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is planning a final wave of appointments to fill the 10 vacancies in the Senate before he retires in March, Radio-Canada has learned.

The move would allow him to leave a mark on Parliament for years to come, as these unelected legislators will be able to sit until the age of 75.

A source familiar with the matter says that the selection process for the future senators is already underway and should be completed before his departure. After proroguing Parliament earlier this month, Trudeau announced that he will leave power after the Liberal Party chooses a new leader on March 9.

In a written response, the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the advisory board for Senate appointments is at work to propose candidates for all vacancies.

“Prorogation did not affect the ability of the Governor General to make appointments to the Senate based on the advice of the prime minister,” said PMO spokesman Simon Lafortune. “The prime minister takes his responsibility to appoint senators seriously and will do so as long as he remains in office.”

The prime minister likes to praise the independence of the senators he has appointed since 2016, but he has nonetheless picked several high-profile Liberals to sit in the Senate in recent years.

The Conservative Party of Pierre Poilievre, which is leading in national polls, has long been critical of Trudeau’s choices of senators. The Conservatives now fear that Trudeau-appointed senators will try to block their agenda if the party wins the next election, which is expected in the spring.

There are currently 12 senators affiliated with the Conservative Party in the 105-seat chamber.

“For someone who advocated an independent Senate, [Trudeau] will have ended up filing the Senate with a large majority of Liberals or people who support his policies,” said Conservative Senator Claude Carignan….

Source: Trudeau to fill Senate vacancies before retiring: source

Sears | How the federal Liberals have opened their leadership race to foreign interference

Good reminder that more work needs to be done beyond reversing the most egregious rule. Implementation and vetting:

…But there is a much larger question here. National party executives and directors are not running the Oakville Seniors’ Lawn Bowling Club. They are the governors of organizations who control who gets to compete to be prime minister. The comparison to any other civil society organization is laughable given that power. They determine who leads our government, and have this time heavily tilted the scales.

The Liberals would have risen in public esteem if they were to have set membership as restricted to 18 year old citizens, who can prove they gave their own money to become a member. And if they had taken the admitted risk of setting a fairer campaign period — I suspect that the NDP could have encouraged not to defeat the government in return for the appropriate policy concession, for example.

Finally, they could have helped erase the memory of their unbelievably lax approach to foreign interference by creating a vetting process advised by a group knowledgeable about national security warning flags.

They chose to do none of these things.

So this race remains wide open to foreign interference and closed to any candidate who is not already a front-runner. This is a blow to Canadian democracy. It will be the most rushed and nontransparent process in the choice of leaders in recent Canadian history.

Source: Opinion | How the federal Liberals have opened their leadership race to foreign interference

Conservative MP Rempel Garner made similar critiques: https://michellerempelgarner.substack.com/p/integrity-questions-loom-over-pm

2024 Looking Back, 2025 Looking Forward

That time of year to look back on my articles and commentary, and look forward to what will likely be my focus in the coming year.

Best wishes for the holidays and the new year, when I will restart my blog.

In addition to my news clipping in Multicultural Meanderings, the majority of my writing focused on citizenship issues, given C-71 and some data projects that I have worked on.

Citizenship

Bill C-71: The need for a timeframe limit (submission to Senate SOCI, 2024)

Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship (Policy Options, 2024)

What citizenship applications tell us about policy implementation (Hill Times, 2024) (paywall, unpaywalled version https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=74476&action=edit

Naturalization Visualized: A Study of Canadian Citizenship Data (Institute for Canadian Citizenship, 2024)

Time to take citizenship seriously in ‘I Am Canadian’ – Or Not: Essay Collection (ACS, 2024)

Other

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents (LinkedIn, 2024)

Anti-hate initiatives have not been able to stop the surge in crimes (Policy Options, 2024)

How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? (Policy Options, 2024)

Executive Diversity within the Public Service: An Accelerating Trend (Hill Times, 2024). Unpaywalled: https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=72434&action=edit

New electoral map and diversity (The Hill Times, 2024) Not paywall protected

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service (Policy Options, 2024)

Most popular posts on LinkedIn:


What a Conservative government might change in immigration, citizenship and employment equity

Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada 2022-23: Preliminary Observations

Explaining the decline in national pride in Canada

Clark: It’s too late for universities and colleges to complain about the foreign student cap

Keller: Thanks to Marc Miller, the immigration system is (slightly) less broken, Clark: Ottawa finally acts on international student visas, setting a challenge for Doug Ford

Clear majority of Canadians say there is too much immigration, new poll suggests

Immigration Minister urged to crack down on international student ‘no shows’ at colleges

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents

Flawed Assumptions and Misleading Information: Outflows

Looking ahead to 2025, I expect that birth tourism will become an issue again given president-elect Trump’s planned actions and likely ensuing litigation.

Given the likely earlier demise of the Liberal government, unlikely that C-71 will make it through the process, leaving a vacuum for the expected Conservative government to address.

The impact of an expected Conservative government on a range of immigration, citizenship and employment equity policies will provide a range of opportunities for commentary and analysis.

Marshall Project: How We Reported on Rhetoric About Immigrants in the 2024 Election

This is really good data based journalism. Far more sophisticated than I did when looking at ethnic media in the 2019 election. Definitely for the data nerds but others could benefit from knowing how they did it:

….For example, Trump has referred to unauthorized immigrants as criminals at least 575 times, as snakes that bite at least 35 times, as coming from prisons, jails and mental institutions at least 560 times and as causing crime in sanctuary cities at least 185 times. He has described the construction of a wall on America’s southern border as essential to public safety at least 675 times, and has argued at least 50 times that mass deportations are acceptable because President Dwight Eisenhower did it. We found all of these claims to be either entirely false or, at the very least, highly misleading….

Source: How We Reported on Rhetoric About Immigrants in the 2024 Election

Coyne: The U.S. election shows that sometimes the people get it wrong

One of his better columns. Many other examples, Brexit being perhaps one of the best among Western countries:

…But that is an entirely separate question from whether it is rational, in response, to vote for a candidate such as Mr. Trump. The Biden administration made its share of mistakes; Ms. Harris has her flaws; the American economy could be performing better (though quite honestly it’s hard to see how); identity politics has a lot to answer for. But the notion that any of these, or all of them, represent such a dire threat, such an emergency, as to justify a “remedy” such as Mr. Trump – there is no other word for this but irrational.

It is not polite to say this. The notion that “the people are always right” is a staple of democratic discourse. And there is much truth in this. Indeed, I have often been forced to acknowledge it myself – the issue in which I had been so heavily invested, the factors that I had felt sure really ought to decide this or that election, proved, in the fullness of time, not to be of such overwhelming importance as all that, at least when set beside all the many other issues and considerations that combine, by some extraordinary alchemy, to produce a vote.

The average voter, busy as they are with the regular distractions of life, may take a broader and I dare say better view of things than the full-time pundit, too caught up in the day-to-day minutiae of politics. But it is not necessarily true, always and everywhere. Indeed, it can’t be true for all voters – in any election, the abiding wisdom of the majority must be set against what is presumably the abject folly of the minority.

Who’s to say we must necessarily pay homage to the former, just because they slightly outnumber the latter? Sometimes the people – some of the people at any rate – get it wrong. Especially the people who say the reason they voted for Donald Trump is that he is a “man of God,” or will “get tough with Russia,” or “cares about people like me.”

It is expected of politicians, especially losing politicians, that they must nevertheless grit their teeth and mouth the words, “The people are always right.” But such pieties are not required of columnists.

Source: The U.S. election shows that sometimes the people get it wrong

Khrushcheva: Enablers, profit-mongers and blind believers sent Trump back to the White House

One of the more mordant commentaries:

…Mr. Trump had plenty of help in converting voters to his debauched religion. Fox News, Rupert Murdoch’s highly profitable propaganda machine, distorted discourse and stoked outrage. Tech billionaires supported Mr. Trump’s rise more directly – Elon Musk was Mr. Trump’s second-largestfinancial backer – in the hopes of benefiting from a deregulation spree. (Tesla shares have already surged.) Such tech titans – together with the silent powerbrokers of Wall Street, like Jamie Dimon – are the modern American equivalents of the German business leaders who thought they could control Adolf Hitler. Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans are under no such illusions, which helps to explain why even those who once attempted to challenge him have rolled over.

Cowardly Republican politicians have helped Mr. Trump to shake the political radioactivity that should have engulfed him after he incited his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The next day, figures like Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham finally seemed prepared to wash their hands of Mr. Trump. But days later, they refused to vote for his impeachment. And when Mr. Trump launched his campaign for the party’s nomination again, they quickly fell into line. Nobody wants to be on a dictator’s bad side. And, given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling granting the president virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, Mr. Trump will be nothing if not a dictator.

How did it come to this? A majority of white Americans have lost faith in their country. Members of the profit-hungry business elite have gained an unfettered ability to use their pocketbooks to shape politics. And Republican politicians have sacrificed their own integrity – and American democracy – at the altar of power.

Source: Enablers, profit-mongers and blind believers sent Trump back to the White House