It may be wise not to look upon President Donald Trump’s defection from the 2015 Paris Agreement(l’Accord de Paris) as a decision dooming our ailing planet. Nor can it be seen as reflecting the will of the citizens of the United States. Climate change remains a major concern for countries around the world, the survival of planet Earth being at stake. If planet Earth dies, we all die. With respect to climate change, action cannot be delayed as we are already seconds before midnight.
Three European Nations React
A mere hour after President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, Italy, Germany, and France stated jointly that the Paris Agreement could not be renegotiated. (See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Wikipedia.)
Again, a mere hour after Mr Trump made his decision public, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a refuge in France to American climate scientists. Some of these scientists, and they are numerous and highly skilled, have gone to Washington and warned President Trump of the imminent danger climate change posed, but to no avail. It could well be that the President’s decision is not an American decision, but Donald Trump’s decision. Ironically, President Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, opposed the President’s decision.
But I am also reading that there is considerable resistance in the United States. After listening to former President Obama’s farewell address, I wrote that he probably felt that a democracy was its own corrective or “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln ‘s Gettysburg Address.)
“Thirty cities, three states, more than 80 university presidents, and more than 100 companies are part of a growing group intending to uphold the Paris Agreement, the climate-change accord that President Donald Trump on Thursday announced the US would be exiting.”
The group is being organized by billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg.
Michael Bloomberg, the UN special envoy for cities and climate change, at the C40 Mayors Summit in Mexico City on December 1. Reuters
Conclusion
After Mr Trump’s visit to Europe, Chancellor Merkel‘s political rivals agreed with her that Europe would have to look after itself. However, it turns out that Mr Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement has unleashed widespread disappointment, in the United States in particular, but also everywhere.
Mr Trump may be a dangerous man, but he is predictable. He announced that he would not allow Muslims to enter the United States and is now planning another travel ban, but Americans will find a way to defeat it. Three men were stabbed and two died protecting Muslim women on a train in Portland, Oregon. The United States has long been a refuge to the oppressed. President Trump’s Islamophobia has not affected all the citizens of the United States. Besides, it is selective. He travelled to Saudi Arabia and signed an arms deal.
President Trump is also trying to take away from Americans what protection they enjoyed under the Affordable Act Care. Law-abiding American citizens pay their taxes and are therefore entitled to the security citizens of other and poorer countries enjoy.
The next link takes the reader to comments by Sir Richard Branson who may be saying that, in a democracy, if a people is threatened, it will rush to its own rescue.
Detail of Elihu Vedder‘s mural Government (1896), in the Library of Congress. The title figure bears a tablet inscribed with Lincoln‘s famous phrase. (Photo and caption credit: Wikipedia)
President Obama bids his Nation Farewell
On Tuesday 10 January 2017, President Obama gave his farewell address to his nation. The subscript was: “Yes we can,” his rallying cry and perhaps the rallying cry of most democracies. Democracy is not a perfect form of government. Too many voters are uninformed or misinformed, but a democracy remains the best form of government we have. However, on 8 November 2016, democracy failed the United States. Americans voted into office a nominee who is unable to play his role as President of the United States. I suspect a large number of his supporters did not know Mr Trump. It seems, moreover, that rules deemed sacred under his predecessors have to be less stringent to accommodate President-elect Donald Trump. It started during the electoral campaign.
According to Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan the medium is the message. I may be rearranging Mr McLuhan’s theory, but not by much. When Americans voted Mr Trump into the presidency, they probably embraced an image. They saw in Donald Trump a successful white American and felt so comforted that they elected him and conferred upon him a degree of immunity. In the case of Mr Trump, sexual misconduct seemed a lesser offence. So did lying. In fact, whether or not Mr Trump had paid his taxes did not seem to matter, nor did his inability to fulfill the duties of a president of the United States. He’s “the Donald!”
Mr Trump may have known he would need assistance. He appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as his main advisor. As for Mr Kushner’s wife, Ivanka Trump, she will probably play the role of first lady more than Melania Trump, Mr Trump’s wife. Mr Kushner has not come up through the ranks, but it doesn’t seem to matter. It is as though the presidency were under revision.
Still fresh in my mind is the obstructionism and scapegoating President Obama faced day after day. He could not do anything right, but incoming President Trump is unlikely ever to do anything wrong. I suspect Mr Trump is the one who will criticize the press, and not the press Mr Trump.
President-elect Donald J Trump
Democracy
Yet, as noted above, it appears President Obama is of the opinion that democracy is its own corrective. In a democracy, the government is the people. One elects one’s leader(s) and one then attempts to keep them honest. There is little doubt that, four years from now, Americans will vote again and that a different president may be elected, but protecting the planet cannot wait four years.
President Obama’s address was indeed empowering. Americans remain the government. At times, President Obama seemed to be inviting Americans to get organized and to resist: “Yes we can.”
Can fallible democracy be its own remedy? It may be, in the long run. But in the short term mistakes may be made. President Obama stated that he would support a good health care plan, if a good health care plan was proposed. I could be mistaken, but it seems President Obama was expressing confidence in Donald Trump. It may have been simple civility.
And now, Mr Trump is saying that “big pharma” is “getting away with murder.” That would be Bernie Sanders‘ opinion. Pharmaceutical companies are like Insurance Companies. They are businesses and their goal is to make a profit.
However Senate took a “major step toward repealing health care law.” As a result, there could be another election sooner than we think. There is a huge price to pay for destabilizing and humiliating a nation. And there is an even greater price to pay for letting less affluent citizens suffer and die. What these politicians are doing is denying the middle class and the poor the services the well-to-do can afford.
Conclusion
I will miss President Obama enormously. The United States’ first black president earned the respect and the admiration of the world. For eight years, a humble but brilliant Barack Obama was the world’s finest leader.
Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi is the fourth fable in book three of La Fontaine’s first volume of Fables (1668) (IX.2). His second volume, containing five books, was published in 1678. The twelfth book was published in 1694, shortly before his death. The same fable is also one of Æsop’s Fables, classified as number 44 in the Perry Index(the classification of Æsop’s Fables).
Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi tells the story of “silly and frightened” frogs who live in a democracy, but, tired of democracy, ask Jupiter for a monarch. Jupiter acquiesces. From the skies descends a peace-loving king who makes a huge noise as he lands. This king is often represented as a beam or log.
Frightened by the din, the frogs go into hiding, only to return slowly to look at the king. The peace-loving king is a beam, which is not very kingly. The frogs start jumping on the beam-king, which the king tolerates as Jupiter grumbles. The beam-king is a kindly monarch, but he does not move.
Dissatisfied, the people go back to Jupiter to ask for a king who moves. So Jupiter sends them a crane that starts eating them up. In Æsop’s telling of this fable, the crane is a stork.
In Phædrus‘ Latin translation of this fable by Æsop, a second king is sent to the frogs. It is a water snake. There is no second king in La Fontaine.
Our silly frogs complain, and Jupiter tells them, first, that they should have kept their government (a democracy), second, that they should have been pleased to be sent a gentleman-king, the beam-king, and, third, to settle for the king they have for fear of encountering a worse one, La Fontaine’s celui-ci (this one) pointing to the voracious crane.
In Æsop, as noted above, the crane is a stork.
KING LOG & KING STORK
The Frogs prayed to Jove for a king:
“Not a log, but a livelier thing.”
Jove sent them a Stork,
Who did royal work,
For he gobbled them up, did their king.
One of the morals of this fable is the eternal “Leave well enough alone,” but we are also reading a “beware-of-your-wishes-as-they-may-come-true” narrative. The moral of this fable is also a defense of the status quo, the state of affairs.
If all is well, a change is not necessary. If forewarned of possible dangers, a change may be dangerous. Knowing there are very real dangers, one does not jump into uncertainty. In a serious election, one cannot say “I’ll give him or her a chance.” Acting in such a manner reflects a somewhat flawed understanding of democracy. As I wrote above, La Fontaine calls the frogs who are not pleased with the good king log, a beam: “gent fort sotte et fort peureuse,” very silly and very frightened people.
We do not know the exact origin of this fable. Æsop retold fables told in the Near East, Middle East and India, including Buddhist tales. The most likely source is the Sanskrit Panchatantraby Vishnu Sharma, written in the 3rd century BCE. The storyteller is Pilpay or Bidpai. Bidpai’s stories were translated by Persian scholar Ibn al-Muqaffa as Kalīlah wa Dimnah. Moreover, Æsopic fables translated into Latin, by Phædrus, or Greek, by Babrius, were retold several times after Phædrus and Babrius. There are modern references to the Frogs Who Desired a King or King Log & King Stork. Under The Frogs Who desired a King, Wikipedia quotes New Zealand author James K. Baxter who wrote:
A democratic people have elected
King Log, King Stork, King Log, King Stork again.
Because I like a wide and silent pond
I voted Log. That party was defeated.
I can sense a personality disorder, but it is difficult for me to give it a name. I am not a psychologist, nor am I a psychiatrist. However, our colleague B. Ashley has studied the “Donald phenomenon” methodically and has sought the help of experts. Therefore, she may be able to provide information that go beyond my “trumpism,” which consists in concealing one’s platform or in not having a platform to begin with. It would seem that what ails Mr Trump is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Wikipedia). There can be no doubt that his behaviour is “characterized by a exaggerated feelings of self-importance,” or grandiosity.
Voter take into account the nominee’s platform. But they also choose the nominee considering the manner in which he or she behaves. Mr Trump has behaved as though he owned the presidency. Mr Trump has avoided presenting a serious and coherent platform, a process I have called “trumpism.” He has also exhibited a sense of entitlement, which is consistent with narcissistic behaviour.
Cancelling the Election? Never!
Mr Trump had stated he would not accept the result of the election unless he were elected. But he has moved a step closer to imposing himself on the American electorate. The moment he heard that more emails had been found that could harm Mrs Clinton, he boldly proposed that the election be cancelled. He was the President of the United States by default, so to speak.
On the one hand, Mr Trump displayed feelings of grandiosity, and, on the other hand, he forgot a simple and well-known rule, which is that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, particularly egregious is the implication that one can rise to the presidency of the United States dispensing with an election. That would be an assault on democracy. It is the behaviour or dictators.
It could be that Mr Trump is afraid the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will not find information that would disqualify Mrs Clinton and that he felt he should quickly seize this heaven-sent opportunity. Not only would Mr Trump have risen to the presidency having avoided a serious discussion of the many issues at hand, thereby flaunting “exaggerated feelings of self-importance,” but, more importantly, Mr Trump would have circumvented the election to which campaigns lead, which I do not think is possible.
Mrs Clinton has asked, unambiguously, that all information FBI investigators extract from the latest emails they are in possession of be made available to the electorate as soon as possible, if appropriate. This request is reasonable. But it is not reasonable to expect being proclaimed President of the United States by-passing an election. If the FBI finds serious and arguably true improprieties in the emails they are examining, I should think the need for an election would not be eliminated. Americans would still have to choose between nominees.
I do not know what protocol would be used in this worst-case scenario, but I doubt that an election can be avoided. Elections are central to the “rule of the commoners,” the concept that underlies the notion of democracy. (See Democracy, Wikipedia.) A democracy is not a perfect form of government, but it is the best we have. Americans must vote.
Mr Trump has tarnished his image. A nominee to the presidency should know:
that sexual assaults are unacceptable;
that a defeated nominee must accept defeat because the United States is a democracy;
that one does not attack members of one’s party. Colin Powell is a retired General and a former Secretary of State. His support was essential;
and that one has to be voted into office. Nominees are not divinely ordained, which would explain why Mr Trump has circumvented a serious discussion of the issues. He is “chosen.”
Let us also remember:
that his attitude towards Mexicans and Muslims is unacceptable;
and that il n’est pas sortable. He does not have the polite manners that allow one to take him out. He will shame the United States.
Conclusion
To conclude, I will write that if Mr Trump is elected to the presidency of the United States, Americans will have to face with the consequences of their decision, and so will the world. The United States is a democracy.
WordPress has specialists. What a group! B. Ashley researched “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” I thank her.
In the area of Greek mythology, Aquileana is our expert. Narcissus is an important figure in Greek mythology, so Aquileana has told his story. Please note that Aquileana has not expressed her view on Mr Trump. Her area is Greek mythology and related Roman mythology. The following link leads to her post on Narcissus.
But I will attempt to summarize Narcissus'(story, using Wikipedia and Britannica.
Narcissus was the son of the river-god Cephissus and the nymph Liriope. He was a beautiful youth who “disdained those who loved him” (the nymph Echo loved him and so did Ameinias). Nemesis, “the goddess who enacted retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods),” was able to attract Narcissus, the son of the river-god, to a river and once he saw the reflection of his face, he could not stop looking at it. “Narcissus lost his will to live. He stared at this reflection until he died.”
However, “[t]he Greek traveler and geographer Pausanias, in Description of Greece, Book IX, said it was more likely that Narcissus, to console himself for the death of his beloved twin sister, his exact counterpart, sat gazing into the spring to recall her features.”[1]
The story of Narcissus is told in Ovid‘s Metamorphoses, Book III. The flower named after Narcissus, the narcissus, is best known as the daffodil or jonquil. The jonquil grew where Narcissus died.[2]
The term narcissism has several meanings, which include grandiosity and egocentrism. Narcissists focus on themselves and themselves alone. For instance, Napoleon had himself crowned Emperor. But this practice has no room in a democracy.
William Lyon Mackenzie’s house on Bond Street in downtown Toronto.
Canada’s National Holiday
On Wednesday, July 1st, Canadians celebrated their National Holiday. As for the citizens of Quebec, they celebrated their National Holiday on 24 June which is Saint-Jean-BaptisteDay,the former Saint-Jean. The date on which Saint-Jean-Baptiste is celebrated is on or near the summer solstice or Midsummer Day, the longest day of the year. This year, the summer solstice occurred on the 22 June.
Midsummer Dance by Anders Zorn, 1897 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As for Canada Day, it is celebrated on the anniversary of Confederation, the day Canada became a Dominion of Great Britain: 1st July 1867. I have written posts telling the story of Confederation and have listed them at the foot of this post.
Although the people of Quebec do not celebrate Canada day, the province of Quebec was one of the four initial signatories of the British North America Act. Quebec’s Premier was George-Étienne Cartier, named after George III, hence the English spelling of George, i.e. no final ‘s’. The other three provinces to join Confederation on 1st July 1867 were Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
The Discrepancy: Quebec and Ottawa
As you know, a large number of Québécois are nationalists and many advocate the separation, to a lesser or greater extent, of the Province of Quebec from the remainder of Canada. This explains why Quebec, one of the first four signatories of the British North America Act, does not observe Canada Day.
It could be argued that the province of Quebec was Lower Canada risen from its ashes, land apportioned by Britain itself, under the terms of the Constitutional Act of 1791, to the descendants of the citizens of New France defeated by British forces on 13 September 1759 at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.* The battle had claimed the life of both its commanding officers: Louis-Joseph de Montcalm, aged 47, and General James Wolfe, aged 32, but it had lasted a mere fifteen minutes.
*The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is thus called, i.e. Abraham, because it was fought on land belonging to Abraham Martin.
The Greater Loss to Quebecers
1759, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham
1840, the union of Upper and Lower Canada
Of the two, first, the loss of Lower Canada’s motherland, ceded to Britain in 1763, and, second, the Act of Union of 1841 which followed the Rebellions of 1837-1838, the greater loss may well be the loss of Lower Canada. One cannot know the fate awaiting Nouvelle-France had France won the SevenYears’ War (1856-1763), called the French and Indian War in North America. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763, France chose to keep its sugar-rich Caribbean colonies, as well as the islands of Saint-Pierreet Miquelon, off the coast of Newfoundland.
However, Quebec had been granted a period of grace after the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763. The citizens of the former New France knew they had become a colony of Britain, but they had yet to feel the full impact of their condition as British but ‘conquered’ subjects.
A Reprieve
the Treaty of Paris
the Quebec Act of 1774
the Constitutional Act of 1791
betrayal
There had been a reprieve. First, France negotiated the cession of Nouvelle-France. Britain would not deprive its new subjects of their language, their religion, their property and their seigneuries. It didn’t. Second, by virtue of the Quebec Act of 1774,the citizens of the former New France had become full-fledged citizens of a British Canada. Third, less than two decades after the Quebec Act of 1774, 17 years to be precise, the Constitutional Act of 1791 had divided the vast province of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada.
Whatever its purpose, the Constitutional Act of 1791 created Lower Canada and, in the eyes of Canadiens, Lower Canada was their country, or terroir, which they were now losing. Therefore, if one takes into account the loss of Lower Canada and the determination to assimilate Canadiens, the Act of Union of 1841 was betrayal on the part of Britain, not Upper Canada.
The Rebellions of 1837 and 1838 occurred in both Canadas: Upper and Lower Canada. These could be perceived as twin rebellions orchestrated by Louis-Joseph Papineau (7 Oct 1786 – 25 Sept 1871), in Lower Canada, and William Lyon Mackenzie (12 March 1795 [Scotland]-28 August 1864 [Toronto]), in Upper Canada.
However, Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie were not fighting against one another. Both Papineau and Mackenzie were “patriots” and allies. Their common motivation was to be granted a responsible government and, consequently, greater democracy.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the citizens of Upper Canada were English-speaking Canadians living on British soil. As for the citizens of Lower Canada, they were a conquered people, former French subjects, living on British soil and realizing that they had been conquered. Not all of Lower Canada’s rebels were Canadiens. One was Dr Wolfred Nelson (10 July 1791 – 17 June 1863), a patriote and a future Mayor of Montreal.[1]
The majority however were descendants of the citizens of a defeated Nouvelle-France. In short, the rebels of Upper Canada differed from the rebels of Lower Canada. The patriots and the patriotes were not on an equal footing, so it is somewhat difficult to speak of the rebellions as twin rebellions. They weren’t, at least not entirely and not according to a reality of the mind.
The Rebellions in Lower Canada
different intensity
repressive measures, harsher
There were two rebellions in Lower Canada. The first took place in 1837 and the second, in 1838. The rebellions in Lower Canada were more intensive than their equivalent in Upper Canada.[2] Six battles had been waged in Lower Canada. Repressive measures were therefore much harsher:
“[b]etween the two uprisings [in Lower Canada], 99 captured militants were condemned to death but only 12 went to the gallows, while 58 were transported to the penal colony of Australia. In total the six battles of both campaigns left 325 dead, 27 of them soldiers and the rest rebels. Thirteen men were executed (one by the rebels), one was murdered, one committed suicide, and two prisoners were shot.” (Peter Buckner, “Rebellion in Lower Canada,” The CanadianEncyclopedia.)
Most importantly, as we will see below, Lord Durham had recommended the assimilation of Canadiens, which was devastating to the people of Lower Canada. In Upper Canada, three men were hanged and William Lyon Mackenzie fled to the United States. He lived in New York until he was pardoned in 1849. Louis-Joseph Papineau also fled to the United States and then sailed to France. As for Dr Wolfred Nelson, he was unable to flee and was exiled to Bermuda. It was a brief period of exile.
Dispossession
Act of Union of 1840-1841
Lower Canada, the homeland of French-speaking subjects
Clearly, for the former citizens of Lower Canada, the Act of Union of 1840-1841 was dispossession. During the years that preceded the Rebellions, it had occurred to Louis-Joseph Papineau, the leader of the Parti canadien, that Lower Canada should seek independence from Britain. Although Nouvelle-France had been ceded to Britain, by virtue of the Constitutional Act of 1791, Lower Canada belonged to Britain’s French-speaking subjects. Britain could not help itself to the vaults of both Upper and Lower Canada, its North American colony.
Lord Durham(Courtesy The Canadian Encyclopedia)
Lord Durham’s Report
an ethnic conflict
a United Province of Canada
the assimilation of French-speaking Canadians
a responsible government
Tocqueville: a nation
It should be pointed out that in the ReportJohn Lambton, 1stEarl of Durham submitted after he investigated the rebellions in the two Canadas, he concluded that the Rebellions were an ethnic conflict, which is not altogether true nor altogether false. The rebellions were a quest for responsible government which Lord Durham himself proposed in his Report. The motivation was the same inboth Canadas: responsible government.
However, in his Report, Lord Durham proposed not only the Union of both Canadas, but also recommended the assimilation of French-speaking Canadians whom he viewed as a people possessing “neither a history nor a literature.” Never were French-speaking Canadians so offended! The Act of Union of 1841created a United Province of Canada.
Moreover, when the United Province of Canada was created, the land apportioned English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians made French-speaking Canadians a minority. It should also be noted that the United Province of Canada was not granted a responsible government, which had been the reason why the two Canadas rebelled and one of Lord Durham’s recommendations.
The time had come for both Canadas, now united, to be mostly self-governed. During a trip to Lower Canada, Alexis de Tocqueville noticed and noted that the French in Lower Canada had become what I would call a nation, but a conquered nation that had yet to enter the Industrial Age and whose people had not acquired the skills they required to leave their farms, or thirty acres, trente arpents, the acreage provided to the settlers of Nouvelle-France.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Lower Canada
a nation, but a nation conquered
In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859) and Gustave de Beaumont (16 February 1802 – 30 March 1866) took a little time off from their duties in the United States, to visit the inhabitants of France’s former colony, believing they had become British, or assimilated, which was not the case. Their language, religion, land and seigneuries had not been taken away from French-speaking Canadians. They were a nation, albeit a conquered nation.
Canadiens wanted news of “la vieille France,” old France, but there was no “vieille France,” not after the French Revolution. What was left of vieille France, Tocqueville and Beaumont found in Lower Canada. According to Tocqueville, the villain in the loss of New France was Louis XV of France. Louis XV had abandoned France’s colony in North America.
It is astonishing that, in 1831, a few years before the Rebellions and during a brief visit to Lower Canada, Tocqueville should express the opinion that the “greatest and most irreversible misfortune that can befall a people is to be conquered:”
Je n’ai jamais été plus convaincu qu’en sortant [de ce tribunal] que le plus grand et le plus irrémédiable malheur pour un peuple c’est d’être conquis.
(See RELATED ARTICLES, below.)
The above is significant. In the wake of the Acte d’Union,Antoine Gérin-Lajoiewrote his plaintive “Un Canadien errant,” dated 1842. Moreover, as mentioned above, French-speaking Canadians had begun creating a “literary homeland,” (la Patrie littéraire) the name given to the period of French-Canadian literature during which French-speaking Canadians set about proving Lord Durham wrong, which they did successfully.
Baldwin and Lafontaine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Robert Baldwyn and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine
Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine
‘Assimilation’ cancelled (1842)
the responsible government achieved (1846)
Matters would also be redressed ‘politically,’ so to speak. In 1842, shortly after the Act of Union was passed (1840-1841) Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine (4 October 1807 – 26 February 1864) was elected Joint Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada, a position he shared with RobertBaldwin whose jurisdiction was the western portion of the United Province of Canada. Lord Durham’s proposed assimilation of Britain’s French-speaking subjects was never implemented. Finally, although it would not happen immediately, the Baldwin-LaFontaine team would achieve the objective pursued by the rebels of 1837 and 1838, responsible government, which meant greater democracy.
LaFontaine resigned one year after his appointment as Prime Minister because Britain was not delivering on responsible government. However, in 1848, James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin, who had been named governor general of the United Province of Canada in 1846, asked Lafontaine (also spelled LaFontaine) to form a responsible government.
“LaFontaine thus became the first prime minister of Canada in the modern sense of the term. During this second administration, he demonstrated the achievement of responsible government by the passage of the Rebellion Losses Bill, despite fierce opposition and violent demonstrations. His ministry also passed an Amnesty Actto forgive the 1837-38 rebels, secularized King’s College into the University of Toronto, incorporated many French Canadian colleges, established Université Laval, adopted important railway legislation and reformed municipal and judicial institutions.” (Jacques Monet, S. J., “Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine,” The Canadian Encyclopedia.)
Confederation
So a mere twenty-six (26) years after passage of the Act of Union, Quebec, under the leadership of George-Étienne Cartier, entered Confederation. Sir George-Étienne Cartier asked that Quebec retain its recently-acquired Code civil and that primary education remain compulsory. These requests were granted.
Confederation had the immense benefit of returning to Canadiens their former Lower Canada. They regained a territory or patrimoine (a homeland), however mythical. And they have bestowed on their patrimoine its National Day, la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
At the last meeting of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Premier Dr Philippe Couillard, stated that Quebec was a patrimoine to Québécois and Canada, their country.
My kindest regards to all of you and apologies for being away from my computer and late in every way. Yesterday was Independence Day. Belated wishes to my American readers. Next, I will write about an award.♥
Occasionally, WordPress suggests topics to blog about. Destructiveness, or something to that effect, is one of these topics.
What I am seeing at the moment is a nation, namely the US, who has a fine administration, but where Tea Party members and hardline Republicans are putting obstacles in the path of this administration in the naïve expectation that getting rid of the Democrats will magically eliminate America’s economic woes.
First, the current administration had nothing to do with the debt. That debt was incurred by a former administration (who had inherited a surplus by the way) and it would still be there the morning after a Republican administration might, to the consternation of most of the rest of the world, be voted into office.
It appears to most observers that the world would prefer not to deal with a parochial and intellectually weak Republican administration.
So pay the debt and support President Obama’s stimulus package. Republicans messed up America and should be charged to pay for the clean-up.
But, don’t expect miracles. Given the size of the problem; given also anti-tax extremism, the problem will not be fixed overnight.
Second, Tea Party members and hardline Republicans don’t really care about the people, and, by extension, about their country. They only care about the rich citizens who fund their election campaigns. If they cared for the nation, anti-tax extremism would disappear. If they cared, the US would have a comprehensive social program. If they cared, these elected officials would repair the harm caused by natural disasters and rebuild New Orleans. If they cared, there would be food on every table. If they cared, at least certain jobs would be repatriated and many more would be created. If they cared, veterans would be employed and suitably housed. If they cared, they would respect the duly-elected President of the United States and work with his administration at improving the lot of the common man instead of making the rich richer. Finally, if they really cared, America might actually be a genuine democracy.
G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) writes that in a democracy, first, “the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men.” Second, in a democracy “the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common.” [1]
But they don’t care. Obstructionism is a game and, given what is at stake, the survival of America and the health of global markets, it’s an unacceptable game.
Where could I find a better example to shed light upon destructiveness?
* * *
October 6, 2011
[1] Gilbert K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, “The Ethics of Elflandˮ (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1943), pp. 82-83.
According to James Carville, President Obama should make changes within his team and replace some of its players. I wish that matters were so simple that merely reshuffling the team would solve the problem. With all due respect, I do not think firing and reshuffling will work. The problem has other roots. America’s current woes have little to do with President Obama and his administration. So let us look in another direction.
Foremost in my mind, at this moment, is the total failure on the part of hardline Republicans to work towards the good of their nation. I have heard a few words to the contrary. In an NBC Meet the Press interview with David Gregory, Senate minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that, “there are actually things we [Republicans and Democrats] agree on” (quoted by Josh Feldman, 18 September 2011).
However, House Speaker John Boehner, who was quoted and seen in a video incorporated into the Meet the Press interview, says that “tax increases, I think, are off the table. I don’t think they can be a viable option the Joint Committee.” One wonders, therefore, whether or not President Obama has a partner in the Republican party.
Let this be my first question. I have seen and heard all current Republican candidates tell what each would bring to the United States if he or she were elected to the leadership of the Republican party. Not in any of their answers did I hear the words égalité and fraternité, equality and brotherhood, the founding principles, along with liberty, of a democracy, or republic. I realize that Republicans need a leader, but were this leader to become President, would he or she tend to the needs of the nation and require the affluent to pay their fair share of taxes. Given House Speaker John Boehner’s statement, I doubt it. Moreover, Senator McConnell pointed out that the elections would be held next year, not this year. Yet now is the time to act.
Can these Republicans not see that the United States is descending into an abyss and that America cannot wait. And why this descent? There is a simple answer. It seems to me that Congress is not a forum, which it should be, but an arena, a sport’s arena. And it also appears to me that although the Civil War ended in 1865, it has not ended. Hardline Republicans are at war with their own country and this is not acceptable.
Yes, Americans can rally behind a leader, but it appears that hardline Republicans cannot see and, more importantly, do not want to see that Congress is not a battle field. As Abraham Lincoln stated, “[a] house divided against itself cannot stand.”
—000—
Dear Republicans, do make choosing a future candidate to the Presidency a lesser priority than the work you have been mandated to do, but are not doing: making sure there is bread on everyone’s table. Moreover, do stop, purposefully and in full view of the entire world, sabotaging the current administration. Your work is to ensure America remains functional and that it grows.
I hope you realize that there is no quick fix for the harm inflicted on America during the former Republican administration and that you also realize obstructionism is unacceptable. It is legitimate for one party to oppose the other party, within reasonable limits, but a party, the opposition, does not engage in obstructionism, especially at the cost of the nation. Current circumstances call for prompt remedial action. Therefore, throwing stones at the other party will not benefit the people of America. Besides, such behaviour is childish.
As for President Obama, I am asking him to be ruthless. No country should tolerate irresponsible naysayers, but all I hear from hardline Republicans is a constant “let them eat cake.” They do not seem to care for the people. Is that a dignified way to treat the citizens who have elected a candidate into office?
In a previous blog, I wrote that I didn’t think Marie-Antoinette ever said “let them eat cake” to the French, but “let them eat cake” is what the French heard, and they stormed the Bastille. Systematic obstructionism is serious wrong-doing, particularly when a country, the United States of America, is on the brink of an economic disaster. As I have written in other blogs, there is an enemy within. America is its own worst enemy, except that markets have become global markets, which means that all stand to lose. Wake up!
Finally, why am I not detecting in the statements made by the candidates to the leadership of the Republican Party the sense of urgency (not panic, urgency) Mr Carville expressed when he proposed firing and reshuffling in the current administration? That is my second question. When will you start expressing genuine concern for the ills of the nation and act accordingly? I may not think firing and reshuffling are necessary, but I fully agree with Mr Carville that something drastic must be done. That is why I am asking President Obama to be ruthless, in which my suggestion resembles Mr Carville’s suggestions.
It has always been my understanding that elected officials worked for and not against the good of their country and that, once elected into office, a President is everyone’s President. President Obama is President of the United States, which means that he is your President.
“It is the fate of princes to be ill-spoken of for well-doing.”
Marcus Aurelius credits Antisthenes (c. 445 BCE- c. 365 BCE) for stating that “it is the fate of princes to be ill-spoken of for well-doing” (Meditations, VII, 36).
Exceptions to the above quotation are so numerous that its validity is mostly lost. Moammar Gadhafi of Libya has just been deposed and, earlier, Saddam Hussein of Iraq met an end he never expected. Earlier still, we had Hitler, Mussolini and similar tyrants.
But there have been good princes. Roman Emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius was a good Emperor, one of only five good Roman Emperors. And Lincoln was a good President, but he faced severe difficulties when he became President of the United States. Seven States seceded between the day of his election and the day of his inauguration. These are the circumstances that led him to sign an executive order emancipating the slaves of these States.
In the more recent past, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (30 January 1882 – 12 April 1945), also battled huge obstructionism from Republicans in having the New Deal approved. The New Deal meant taxation and far too many rich Americans did not want to pay their fair share of taxes.
Sally Kohn (CNN, 14 September 2011) reports that “anti-tax extremism is nothing but blatant greed masquerading as lousy economics?” Besides, the rich are taking too many jobs away from the United States. If a product can be manufactured less expensively abroad, the product is manufactured abroad. This is unenlightened capitalism or corporate behavior, and it eventually leads to “policies that help the rich cheat the middle class[.]” (Sally Kohn). Does this sense to anyone?
There is nothing wrong with having a Japanese automobile maker manufacture vehicles in a US plant. American workers are usually remunerated adequately. There are times, in other words, when a nation shares markets with other nations for the benefit of its citizens.
But it is obvious that “anti-tax extremism” is making the rich richer and that, as Sally Kohn writes, it is time “to realize that class warfare isn’t a liberal goal but in fact a conservative reality, advanced through decades of policies that help the rich cheat the middle class[.]” The US is becoming a two-class nation: the rich and the poor, and may, as a result, soon cease to be a democracy.
Democracy demands equality and it also demands fraternité, or brotherhood, between the citizens of a country. At this time, “anti-tax extremism” so benefits the rich that they will support political candidates, who, once they are in power, will reward their affluent benefactors with tax cuts. Tax cuts take money away from the people and lead to gross inequality.
To make matters worse, money used to support political candidates is tax-deductible. It would therefore seem reasonable that persons who have invested tax-deductible money in a political campaign should not also reclaim their money by expecting tax cuts and other privileges. Their money would be better used if they paid taxes commensurate with their earnings. Money levied through taxation is money that allows an administration to serve the nation. It is essential money.
Nor should the rich support political campaigns in the hope that they will be allowed to pollute the environment! It is worth remembering that Michele Bachmann claimed that the planet was not melting. Global warming has long ceased to be a matter of opinion. I would ask therefore that hardline Republicans not pull the wool over the eyes of Americans by re-arranging reality to suit the needs of the affluent.
It may be in the best interest of hardline Republicans to blindfold the electorate. But kindly refrain from selling to the nation the seeds of its own destruction. If extremists like Michele Bachmann and other hardline Republicans are willingly selling damaged goods to the American people, shame on them!
On the other hand, if the electorate can see that hardline Republicans are playing games to the point of manipulating reality so the rich can buy “more yachts and luxury villas” (Sally Kohn) and nevertheless vote such people into office, the nation might well deserve its sorry fate.
If the rich support political candidates that will allow further harm to the planet, fund-raising borders on corruption. As I wrote in a previous blog, a nation does not eat its children’s bread. Moreover, doing so by keeping the electorate in the dark is debasing and manipulative in the extreme.
Not only will hardline Republicans who fight taxation eat away at democracy, but unrestrained capitalism will run the economy amuck. Capitalism was aimed, originally, at pooling money to build businesses and factories. These businesses or factories hired people locally and, having earned their salary, workers usually spent it mostly locally. Current well-heeled citizens do not create jobs.
Initially, capitalism was not aimed at concentrating money in thehands of the rich and the privileged. On the contrary! Capitalism was aimed at putting an end to the concentration of money in the hands of the few. We are therefore seeing the rich getting richer and the middle-class rapidly losing ground. As for the poor, well, “let them eat cake,” as Marie-Antoinette is purported to have said, which is probably apocryphal.
No wonder, hardline Republicans look like wax museum versions of themselves: they’re intellectually dead. It is as though they had stood still since the Civil War of 1860.
—ooo—
In short, President Obama is being “ill-spoken of for well-doing.” President Obama needs a stimulus package that will create jobs, and citizens who have jobs will spend their money and boost the economy.
I hear that some Americans are considering moving to Canada to flee the economic perils of the United States: a disappearing democracy and thwarted capitalism. Canada is a nation of refugees, so Americans seeking an escape are looking in the appropriate direction, except that Canadians also fear a recession because of the ill-conceived policies of Tea Party Republicans.
Let me ask those who are considering flight to give the US another chance. Let me ask that you to support President Obama. There is a great deal of cash equity in the United States. In fact, I would surmise that, at this very moment, there is sufficient wealth in the US to pay in full the debt incurred by the former Republican administration. That debt might well be the proverbial drop in the bucket. Help President Obama put into place policies that will make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
It would be my opinion that President Obama has read Marcus Aurelius and knows that he is “ill-spoken of for well-doing.” He is, therefore, not fully, but partly, protected, which does not mean, people should prevent him from his “well-doing.” But do note that, except for the wealthy, the people of the US are very much at risk.
Sally Kohn, please allow me to quote you again. Your message is my message, but you are the economist: “But in light of the depth and breadth of our economic crisis, continuing to put the interests of a few wealthy people and big corporations ahead of the needs of millions and millions of struggling and suffering Americans isn’t just insane. It’s immoral.”
Last night, I watched President Obama’s speech and I listened very carefully.
Allow me to underscore the importance of passing the stimulus package that President Obama is recommending and to point out that the funds he requires will be helpful not only in the short term, but also in the long term. His proposal should be viewed as an investment in the US economy that will benefit future generations.
Let me explain. If you could prevent the death of the 1,500 or more people who died when the Titanic sank, would you sit in complete inertia or would you enter into a rescue mission even if it meant taking risks?
So it is at present with the United States of America. President Obama is asking his nation to engage in a rescue mission, in which he is doing his duty as President. In the short term, approving another stimulus package may, to some, seem ill advised, but it truly isn’t. This stimulus package is in fact necessary. For instance, would Americans consider saving money by not providing former President Bush and President Obama with the personal security they will need during this weekend’s commemoration of the brutal events of 9/11.
There will be a cost surely, but protecting Presidents is part of running a nation. And, as I have noted, one should look not only at the short term issues, but also at the long term benefits of the stimulus package that President Obama is requesting. The stimulus package will be an investment in the US economy and, at the moment, the US economy requires the biggest financial boost it has needed since the Great Depression or otherwise face a truly dreadful and unacceptable alternative: perdition. In fact, is there an alternative?
Under the previous Republican administration, the US sought “dominance” and now, to quote Al Gore (The Assault on Reason, Penguin Books, p. 160), it must seek the “preeminence” it once had and rally behind its leader.
Make no mistake, the world is watching, particularly China, and the world will not willingly allow the US to disintegrate because some narrow-minded Tea Party members are fabricating electoral opportunities engineered to sabotage President Obama’s upcoming re-election campaign. The current Republican Congress dallies on passing necessary spending bills, hoping it can impute the harm they are causing on the current administration and, thereby, bring it down at the next election. That is no way to seek power, if power is the appropriate term, and it will not work. Not only is the nation watching, but, given new technologies, the world can tell easily and immediately that the Tea Party is obviously playing silly and frivolous Nixonian games.
In fact, as I have written in a previous blog, if the world still has any confidence in the United States, it is largely because the current administration can be trusted. The world has little regard for the likes of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Arianna Huffington, Ann Coulter and their ilk. They and other hardline Republicans are being ridiculed everywhere, except within the narrow confines of their dogmatic meeting places.
The world knows, in other words, that a previous administration dipped into the average American’s purse and that, when there was no money left, it made a hole in the bottom of the purse. And the world also knows there was no need for two wars during which the United States of America saw fit to torture prisoners, in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention. Most of the prisoners it tortured were apparently innocent of any wrongdoing.
There are times when Presidents must take extraordinary actions. But former President Bush should have known “just how far one can go too far” (Jean Cocteau, quoted in a previous blog). With all due respect, former President Bush went too far.
However, let former President Bush live out his retirement in comfort and dignity. 9/11 led to a great many short-sighted actions. It was a horrible and destabilizing event. But there were consequences, and one should think of the consequences. As a result of the former President’s actions, America now has a staggering national debt. Nevertheless, allowing this debt to impede proper stewardship in Washington would be injudicious, and not mildly so, but in the extreme.
Why should the current administration not do its work because a previous administration blatantly misappropriated the Clinton surplus it had inherited? The stimulus the current administration is asking for is money needed to provide the services that the nation needs. It is not money the current administration will use recklessly. It is money needed to run a country, in other words, the money needed to put food on the table of American families, not only now but, hopefully, for a very long time: i.e. the long term.
Therefore, please think of the long-term benefits of investing in the United States of America’s economy and pass this stimulus bill. And also pass an extension of the Transportation Bill as well as an extension of unemployment benefits.
There are some fine Republican representatives. Actually, I saw one rise and applaud during the President’s address, but there were far too many, the majority, who sat looking like wax museum versions of themselves. The world saw these lifeless individuals, but it has been reassured that the President will now go to the people and the people need jobs and stability. They will listen intently to him.
Democracy is not an easy form of government. It requires vigilant and informed citizenship. It requires citizens who will take their fate into their own hands and no longer elect into office representatives who do not care about the nation, self-serving representatives. There has to be change and change there will be.
Let me quote Mr Gore once again. Al Gore writes that “[w]hen Lincoln declared at the time of our [the fledging nation] greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was ‘whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.’ (p. 159)”
President Abraham Lincoln, writes Gore, was “not only saving our Union, but also recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail […] what emerges in their place is another strong-man regime. (p. 160)” Make it official: the Civil War is over, there is no slavery nor segregation, the United States is leaving Iraq responsibly, and the United States has elected to the Presidency a gentleman who did not once look at notes when he addressed the nation? Try it yourself. President Obama’s lucidity is amazing.
In the short term, the amount of stimulus money the current administration requires to save the nation may seem high. But in the long term, that amount of money will seem much smaller. History will put the stimulus package in the context that will give it its proper dimensions, and give it sense.
A good nation, the most powerful nation on earth, has to have a soul, a conscience, and must, therefore, ensure the country is operative.
Micheline Walker
Micheline's Blog 