Sobering Thoughts

Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns. I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015). I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!" You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).

XML This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
 
Global military spending
The (London) Times reports that according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russian military spending has fallen in total spending (3.5% to $61.4 billion) and in the international rankings of defense spending, falling from fourth to sixth, behind the United States, Red China, Saudi Arabia, India, and France. The U.S. spends almost as much as the next seven biggest military spenders overall. The top spenders "together made up 60 per cent of global military expenditure." Russia is the second-largest arms exporter following the U.S.


Monday, April 29, 2019
 
Subtle
The (London) Times headline: "Spain's far right seizes seats for first time since Franco." Rod Dreher says the agenda of the so-called far right in Spain seems like a Catholic-informed, cultural conservatism, not (as the Times would suggest) the second-coming of Franco-style fascism.
It is useful to remember that anyone who fails to get 100% on board with the Establishment consensus on immigration will be labeled far right and white nationalist. Pushback on same-sex marriage or abortion, too, and one is veritably Hitler.
We do not live in an age of fine but accurate distinctions.


Thursday, April 25, 2019
 
Moncton may try to save some money by getting rid of some sidewalks
I became aware of this CBC story from New Brunswick because someone retweeted this from Stephen Miller:
The CBC reports:
Moncton is considering removing sidewalks on some streets over several decades under a proposed policy meant to reduce maintenance costs.
In a section of the city's west-end neighbourhood with 16 kilometres of sidewalk, the proposed policy suggests cutting 58 per cent.
Councillors at Tuesday's committee meeting asked for more details and for the city to gather public input before moving ahead. That work could take several months.
Alcide Richard, Moncton's director of design and construction, said portions of the city have sidewalks on both sides of a street, something that's no longer standard.
Richard pointed to Dieppe, where sidewalks aren't installed and the city doesn't plan to plow them in the winter.
"That's a different mentality," he said. "It's trying to be efficient."
A city staff report says the city has a $6.5 million sidewalk repair backlog.
I'm pro-sidewalk. I'm not a fan of neighbourhoods that don't have any sidewalks or only have them on one side of the street. That said, I'm not sure that both sides of a street need to have them as a matter of policy and there certainly appears to be efficiencies to be had for small- and medium-sized cities. But a city that is looking to pinch pennies on sidewalks might have bigger problems.


Wednesday, April 24, 2019
 
Notre Dame and beauty
Stephen Tardif, an assistant professor at the University of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, is probably the most talented writer and gifted thinker I know. Today he writes in the National Post about the fire at Notre Dame and our ideas and ambivalences about beauty. Tardif writes:
Admittedly, beauty can be hard to talk about. Who hasn’t felt, before a sculpture or a sunset, the humbling distance between experience and expression? But the fact that beauty seems to slip from language’s sieve so easily isn’t the only difficulty. To make a judgment about esthetic value is to be exposed to judgment in turn. A pose of sophisticated suspicion towards beauty is much more comfortable, especially in academia, where teachers prefer to trace the history of beauty or to expose its ideological functions rather than celebrate beauty itself.
And yet, the distrust of beauty — along with the vulnerability and embarrassment it causes — is all forgotten in the face of its destruction. While the tragic fire that ripped through Notre Dame last week destroyed beauty, it was also an occasion to be reminded of its importance and its appeal. For as the outpouring of emotion (and money) has demonstrated so vividly, beauty cuts across national boundaries and religious creeds alike; even categories like the secular and the sacred, which seem so rigid and impermeable in other contexts, fall away.
This reminds me of something a secular friend once said about J.S. Bach's "Jesu, Joy Of Man's Desiring," being one of the greatest pieces of musical writing.


Tuesday, April 23, 2019
 
Canada's sanctimonious, self-satisfied immigration position
The Upshot at the New York Times has a fascinating set of graphics on immigration. One has immigration as a percentage of population, and while Canada accepts a little more than the United States by this metric, it is well behind other similar countries (New Zealand and Australia). But this statistic does not take into account a country's ability to accommodate a particular number of immigrants or how many immigrants have been previously accepted that might affect a recipient nation's ability/wisdom to accept additional newcomers. (Historically, in both Canada and the United States, periods of robust immigration have been followed by slowdown periods.)
The second graphic is the type of immigrants accepted in each country as a percentage of all immigrants: family-based, work-related, humanitarian, free movement, and temporary. Justin Trudeau's Liberals and most progressives tout Canada as a compassionate, welcoming home to immigrants, but Canada is on the high end for work-related immigration among the two dozen countries examined. That sounds ... selfish. It is good for the Canadian economy, and, no doubt, the immigrants who can work here. But that is not virtuously selfless. Canada gets something tangible out of the higher percentage of work-related immigrants. The United States has a much larger percentage of family-based immigrants, reuniting separated loved ones. Indeed, the U.S. takes in more of each family-related, humanitarian, and free movement immigrants than does Canada. In fact, Canada has no free movement immigrants. Evidently, it is not just the right of anyone in the world to get up and move to another country, at least if the country they want to move to is Canada.
Canadian politicians pat themselves on their collective backs for how welcoming we are to people from other countries, but would we do so if we accepted immigrants primarily for the reasons that Americans do? Canada opens its doors disproportionately for people looking for a better life due to economic opportunity but are less welcoming to people just looking for a better life, for other reasons. I'm not saying that one reason is better than another. I am saying that perhaps we should not congratulate ourselves for a humane immigration policy when it is obviously so self-serving.
The article concludes by quoting Justin Gest of George Mason University (whose book the Times uses for its graphics), who says: "Immigration is social engineering. You’re building the population of the future." And that means the type of country it will become. Canadian governments are trying to support an economy that does not have enough workers. That's fine. It might be good. And sometimes politicians (like Justin Trudeau) will admit this. But that is not the focus of sanctimonious back-patting Canadian leaders are suggesting when they applaud Canada's open doors to migrants from other countries seeking better lives for themselves and their families.


 
Momentary break from criticizing nightly comedy as punditry
I have often criticized both the New York Times and Washington Post for their regular coverage of the late night hosts and Saturday Night Live as a source for political commentary. The Times makes note of Conan O’Brien's take on Volodymyr Zelensky, the stand-up comedian elected president of Ukraine. O'Brien said:
I looked up their Constitution: The order of succession in Ukraine goes comedian, juggler, magician, then secretary of defense. That’s how it works. After hearing about it, Elizabeth Warren signed up for improv classes.
The Warren addendum was necessary -- I don't think she is an unserious candidate. (In a Canadian context, it would have been hilarious to substitute Elizabeth May for Warren.) But I highlight this O'Brien quip because while I don't think this is humorous or insightful as commentary, it is an amusing joke in itself.


Monday, April 22, 2019
 
There is a middle ground between total independence and lackey
Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson says that the selections of Stephen Moore and Herman Cain as Federal Reserve governors is a "teachable moment concerning the Fed’s vaunted 'independence'." He proceeds to give readers a short history lesson on Fed-White House relations. Over the years both Congress and various administrations have publicly (Lyndon Johnson) and privately (Richard Nixon) cajoled the Federal Reserve for particular policy ends: low interest rates to facilitate inexpensive WWII defense spending, keep unemployment or inflation low, to goose economic growth, to stimulate the economy during recession. Samuelson writes:
But it was still not separate from the rest of government. A case in point: the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Under Ben Bernanke, the Fed cooperated with the Treasury Department during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies. The idea that the Fed was so “independent” that it shouldn’t work with the rest of government was nonsense.
President Donald Trump's so-called assault on Fed independence is unprecedented, but it could be pushing the envelope in permissible political interference. And Moore's nomination, in particular, presents a unique risk of not merely undermining the balance between independence and working with an administration to the benefit of some economic goal, but of outright politicizing the Federal Reserve if Moore ascends to the chair of the board.
By the way, Sarah Binder and Mark Spindel's recent The Myth of Independence — How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve and Peter Conti-Brown 2016's The Power and Independence of the Federal Reserve are both worth reading if you are interesting the relationship between (overtly) political actors and the Fed, the latter of the two books making more of a case for institutional independence. But not complete independence. It doesn't make sense for monetary and fiscal policy to be working toward different ends.


Wednesday, April 17, 2019
 
Yeah, but ...
The Niskanen Center has posted the opening remarks of David Brooks from its February 25 conference, "Beyond Left and Right: Reviving Moderation in an Era of Crisis and Extremism." It is a good speech although I imagine most conservatives who don't like Brooks are not going to like it. That's fine. This point is one that is made often about political parties in general but especially the so-called center that is unhappy with the Left and the Right:
The crucial thing is moderates can’t just be against, can’t just be against left and right. I have sort have been impressed by the movement No Labels, but I’ve always thought that you can’t start a movement whose first word is “no.” You have to be for something, and so you want a vision. The question is, what is the passionate ideal that moderates are for? Frankly, Isaiah Berlin, Raymond Aron, and others –– not good enough. We’re not going to start a movement whose primary motivating engine for the masses is Oakeshott. There has to be an animating idea. Successful political and cultural moments have a radioactive thought.
A few quick reactions to Brooks' statement because I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I don't really agree with him, either.
1. I'm not sure most (supposed) moderates have a coherent system of thought or broad agenda. They are mostly animated by opposition to what they consider the extremes on the Left or Right (usually one or the other, not both, if they are honest with themselves).
2. This necessity for a passionate ideal is only true if such a program could cohere in a political entity with a chance of winning, but there is no reason to believe such a creature exists. Maybe some critical mass of people want something to support, rather than oppose. I'm not convinced.
3. We do not need the doctor to tell me what he wants to replace the cancer with, we just want the cancer removed. Much of western politics is malignant. Sometimes opposition is sufficient.


Monday, April 15, 2019
 
Notre Dame
Andrew Lawton tweets:
True. But buildings are not unimportant, either. I cannot but think of Douglas Murray's fine 2017 book, The Strange Death of Europe, in which he, an agnostic, writes: "I cannot help feeling that much of the future of Europe will be decided on what our attitude is towards the church buildings and other great cultural buildings of our heritage standing in our midst." Matthew Schmitz of First Things tweeted:
Lawton's and Schmitz's tweets are not incompatible.


Friday, April 12, 2019
 
Goodbye sunny ways
Two stories from the CBC website today:
"Trudeau Liberals link 'reckless' Ontario budget with Scheer's Conservatives."
"Trudeau road tests campaign attacks that lump Scheer and Doug Ford with the alt-right."
And that's after a week of the Prime Minister and other Liberals calling Conservatives liars and racists.


 
What a dating app can teach us about politics
Scott Alexander has a post at Slate Star Codex on pain as an ingredient in dating. It begins by describing a dating app:
Reciprocity is a simple dating site, created by some friends of mine. You sign up and see a list of all your Facebook friends who also signed up. You can put a checkmark next to their name to indicate you want to date them (they can’t see this). If you both checkmark each other, then the site reveals you’ve matched.
This sounds brilliant, incentivizing honesty as Alexander notes. Except that's not how it works in practice. There are people who want to date friends but who do not checkmark their names. Alexander did this himself and wondered if he was "ruin[ing] things for everyone else." At the very least, non-checking was self-defeating. Alexander described a friend who also did not check someone she later dated. "Her theory," Alexander explained, "was that asking someone on a date (with all of its accompanying awkwardness and difficulty) was a stronger signal of interest than ticking a checkbox." There is a lesson here larger in its implications than romantic relationships. The app may not work as optimally as its creators and users had hoped. The same is true of politics and culture, and all the plans official straighteners and tinkerers conjure:
Probably this story has the same takeaway as [James C. Scott's] Seeing Like A State – you don’t fully understand social systems, so be careful if you think you can improve on them.
The fundamental difference between the Right and Left, is that conservatives (properly understood) and libertarians understand that people are not perfectible and therefore the job of our institutions is to produce the least shitty outcomes, while liberals and socialists believe that people can be made perfect with the right tweaks to this or that or, in more radical cases, overhauling the whole damn system. As the app Reciprocity and the book Seeing Like a State suggest, improvements are often more difficult to achieve than they are to imagine, especially when anthropology and psychology are not adequately understood.


Thursday, April 11, 2019
 
Sometimes the answer is in the middle
David Brooks says that neither Republicans or Democrats are serious about solving America's southern border problem. The problems with President Donald Trump's stance are well-known so there is no need to rehearse Brooks' argument about the GOP here. About the Democrats, Brooks writes:
The field is wide open for the Democrats to come forth with a decent plan. But on many issues the 2020 Democrats aren’t really having a primary campaign; they’re having a purity test. The candidates are not sure if they can deviate from wherever the social media warriors have defined the leftward edge. So the Democratic show consists of indignant generalities intended to sound radical while changing nothing.
Many Democrats in Congress are denying there even is a crisis on the border. The only Democratic candidate with an immigration plan so far is Julián Castro, who wants to repeal a 1929 provision that made illegal entry a federal crime. Others gesture toward the open border crowd with policies like eliminating ICE. This is Trumpian extremism reversed.
Immigration is one of those issues on which the extreme positions are wrong, because the correct answer means balancing competing goods.
Compromise has become either a meaningless buzzword or a fantastical fetish for some politicians and many pundits. It often does not provide either the principled or pragmatic route to solving issues. But immigration is one area in which neither side is getting it right and a compromise is not only desirable, but prudent and necessary. Politics should not always be a zero-sum game of one side winning and the other side losing. The stakes for tens of thousands of desperate people are too great to take a back seat to partisan wins. And major policy shifts should have bipartisan support so that the vast majority of Americans can buy into the change. We are nowhere near getting this, and that's a tragedy.


Tuesday, April 09, 2019
 
Political dissatisfaction in the UK
The (London) Times' Rachel Sylvester writes that it seems that a growing number of voters say a pox on all their houses when it comes to the two major parties in the UK:
What is extraordinary is the extent to which blame is shared between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. Research by Britain Thinks found that 83 per cent of the public agree that “the entire political establishment” has failed the country on Brexit, and 70 per cent of voters think the Labour leader is more concerned with party politics than the national interest. “None of the above” regularly tops the polls when people are asked who is most trusted to deliver a good outcome — a feeling that is only likely to be reinforced by the inconclusive negotiations so far between the government and the opposition. Although Mrs May has presided over chaos, Mr Corbyn has been so inconsistent that he has been unable to capitalise on her incompetence.
According to the Hansard Society’s annual audit of political engagement, opinions of the British political system are at their lowest ebb in 15 years, with half of voters convinced that neither of the two main parties represent them and 43 per cent saying the country should consider electing parties or leaders with radical ideas who have not been in power before.
As traditional loyalties break down, the number of disaffected independent MPs who no longer feel that they fit into the Tory or Labour tribe is growing. Something similar is going on with the electorate. More than three quarters of people now identify strongly with their 2016 referendum position, but only 37 per cent define themselves in relation to a political party.
Sylvester notes that David Cameron's former pollster, Lord Cooper of Windrush argues that politics is increasingly breaking along cultural lines than economic ones. Sylvester says that the major parties stubbornly persist representing a base that reflects the old model of how politics is divided along economic lines. This certainly has something to do with the growing gap between voters and parties. Class is often about more than economics; its about values. (I would also argue that a lot of supposedly economic policy is actually about values.) The UK is a still a society with severe class divisions. But whereas Labour economic policies may have made sense at one point as helpful to the lower working class, today that same class is more concerned about broader cultural issues and indeed feel that its values are under assault by a Labour Party enthralled with an identity politics that is either foreign or actively opposed to the values of the working class. It should also be noted that while some Labour voters are turned off by the identity politics of the Party's leadership and Labour intellectuals and more attracted to the values of some leading Tories, it is turned off by the cosmopolitan values of other segments of the Conservative leadership and/or the Party's economic policies, which ostensibly seem pro-rich/anti-middle class. Meanwhile, some upper middle class Londoners might be turned off of some of the Conservative Party's provincialism but turned off by Labour's socialism. My thesis that voters (anywhere, not just the UK) might countenance some disagreement on values, but when the respective parties have made those cultural values central to their messaging and policy priorities, it is not possible to just go along with their long-time allegiances despite substantial agreement on economic policies. Culture trumps economics.
One other point about the Sylvester column. She predicts that Labour and the Conservatives will continue to bleed support to smaller parties, including the Independent Group (Change UK, once it becomes an official party). To a point. But the principals involved in Change UK/Independent Group do not speak to the values of many voters upset with the on-going Brexit mess. The answer to the cynicism of voters that politicians do not adequately represent them can hardly be a small group of malcontents who would by happy ignoring the referendum results of 2016. Nothing quite says the opposite of listening to the people like ignoring a referendum. Change UK will be an insider party, hardly the sort answer to the clarion call for a more responsive political leadership.


Friday, April 05, 2019
 
Sexlessness
British journalist Justin Webb writes in the (London) Times about the growing number of young people who are eschewing having sex/not getting any:
For most of the past three decades, 20-something men and women reported similar rates of sexlessness. But since 2008, the share of men aged 18 to 29 who had not had sex in a year nearly tripled to 29 per cent, while the rise among women was a modest 8 percentage points, to 18 per cent.
Webb writes, "There is a real suspicion among some Americans that the sex drought is part-symptom and part-cause of something worrying, even sinister." It is likely that these stats are discovering more than one phenomenon, which is why I say that there is a group of young people choosing not to have sex and a group of young people who may want to engage in such activity but for a myriad of reasons is not. I'm trying to write something longer about this, but there is another, not entirely flippant response to this: perhaps young people are more honest to survey-takers about their sex lives and not "doing it" compared to previous generations. In other words, bragging is down. I don't really buy this as an explanation, but it is certainly possible that the statistics are capturing more truthfulness about the sex lives of those in their teens and 20s.
Kate Julian wrote in The Atlantic about the "sex recession" last December. She concluded:
Sex seems more fraught now. This problem has no single source; the world has changed in so many ways, so quickly. In time, maybe, we will rethink some things: The abysmal state of sex education, which was once a joke but is now, in the age of porn, a disgrace. The dysfunctional relationships so many of us have with our phones and social media, to the detriment of our relationships with humans. Efforts to “protect” teenagers from most everything, including romance, leaving them ill-equipped for both the miseries and the joys of adulthood.
This might be part of it, but I find it both amusing and disturbing that the possibility of young people eschewing casual sex is thought to be in itself some sort of crisis. It is possible that the avoidance of sex could be a symptom of other social and individual problems or maybe even a positive, with young people consciously rejecting the false promises (and false premises) of the Sexual Revolution.


 
Science confirms what every cat-owner knows
The (London) Times reports on a new study from Scientific Reports:
If your cat does not respond when you call, it is not because it does not recognise its name. It is because it does not respect you and instead views your life with, at best, cold indifference.
That is one conclusion of a paper that has found cats, like dogs, are perfectly capable of understanding their names. The difference is that unlike dogs, who come running in response, cats just do not think you worthy of their attention.
The findings come from an experiment involving 78 cats, which were measured for their reaction when both strangers and their owners read out their name. The Japanese scientists conducted the test in homes and “cat cafés”, where people can go to pet cats.
Thank God for science.


Thursday, April 04, 2019
 
Power ranking the Democratic field
Jonathan Last appears to be doing a monthly Democratic presidential contender power ranking at The Bulwark. The top five: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke (moving down the rankings but up in momentum), Kamala Harris (moving down in momentum), and Pete Buttigieg. I don't necessarily disagree with the ranking, but I do find it difficult to entirely dismiss Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Warren is mired in single digits and it appears her policy oriented campaign is setting the agenda but not helping her candidacy. Last admits that Klocuchar is the candidate in the bottom half (he ranked only the top 10) most likely to break into the top five so he's not quite dismissing her, but I think there could be more to her candidacy than the ability to win the Iowa caucus as a fellow midwesterner.
Last also says there is huge gulf between the top five and the rest. I assume one of Warren or Klobuchar will be among the top five before the end of the summer. I also have a difficult time believing that Biden, Beto and Buttigieg are all among the five most likely to win candidates. They seem to be vying for the same moderate voters -- moderate being an entirely relative term here -- and my guess is that at some point one or two of them will break away from the pack, creating a Bernie v. Kamala Harris v. moderate(s) campaign. Klobuchar could be one of the moderates. But there won't be three or four viable "moderates" as we close in on Iowa. There just won't be.


Tuesday, April 02, 2019
 
Civility and political debate
David French has a typically thoughtful essay at NRO, "Is it Uncivil to Argue that Abortion Kills a Baby?" My knee-jerk reply would be "no less civil that killing a baby." I find no daylight between French and my own view, so let me give you the bulleted version of his essay because it's important.
1. Civility is important and it should be our default position but civility is not "always the right response."
2. Facts and accurate descriptions are always permitted. "[S]ometimes the truth is hard to hear."
3. "Petty insults are particularly pernicious coming from Christians." I fully agree even if I often fall victim to the temptation to engage in this sort of "argument" myself.
4. Attacks on supposed incivility are often a "tactic" to "banish" certain ideas from the arena of legitimate debate. This must be resisted. This happens often on hot-button issues, and we've seen if very often against conservatives who question transgenderism, same-sex marriage, and abortion in recent years.
5. Debates about hot-button issues, especially abortion, are difficult because they are weighty. We all should assume that opponents reason in good faith and that, at worse, they are mistaken. Both sides would benefit from starting with this premise -- even when it sometimes is incorrect.
6. "If the choice is between speaking the truth and facing accusations of incivility or keeping and quiet and being applauded for your 'decency,' one must always choose the truth." Still, we must act "with grace."
7. French says in two separate parts of his short essay that pro-lifers (and anyone debating important issues) are teaching others about facts, value judgements, and other considerations that their interlocutor may not know or understand. This is important. If we treat debates like conversations, sharing a point of view with another person instead of beating an opponent or point-scoring, we could be more civil to one another and assume civility in others.


Monday, April 01, 2019
 
Why is Juncker publicly talking trash about Brexit?
The Daily Telegraph reports that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker complained about former UK prime minister David Cameron and the referendum before a regional parliament in Germany:
“We were forbidden from being present in any way in the referendum campaign by Mr. Cameron, who is one of the great destroyers of modern times. Because he said the Commission is even less popular in the UK than it is in other EU member states."
The Telegraph reports, somewhat breathlessly:
The president of the European Commission appeared to compare the ex Conservative leader to monsters of history such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao.
To equate the EU with modernity is pure nonsense and to compare Cameron to Hitler is beyond hyperbole. But seriously, why is Juncker talking trash about Cameron, the referendum, and Brexit? Public comments like this are unhelpful to figuring out the least damaging path out of the political stalemate in London. Juncker does not care about finding the least damaging conclusion to Brexit, but rather is trying to convince other European countries from even considering leaving the EU.