Is Cultural Insecurity "Trumping" Economics?

Over the past few months, I have started one Brexit post after another only to scrap it after it really didn't go anywhere. I scrapped things because I thought it had too much in common with a lot of my other posts; the 2014 Scottish Referendum, the prospect of Grexit in the summer of 2015, or commentary on monetary relations, or even Canadian institutions like the New West Partnership.

My take on Brexit seemed always to revolve around the same sets of tensions embedded in the neoclassical stages of integration. It may be that I need a fresh new analytical frame through which to look at every thing, but I have to admit the stages of integration are a great jump-off point for a lot of things.

Nevertheless, I scrapped every Brexit draft I wrote. Something was missing. Cultural insecurity. It hit me yesterday in a column by Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post who argued hat what is happening transcends the standard economic arguments put forward by politicians over the last 20 or 30 years to win votes. Indeed, dating at least to the 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton, maximizing the benefits of the post-Cold War shift toward liberal capitalism and liberal democracy has been pivotal to many election platforms. In 1992, the Clinton slogan was "It's the economy, stupid."

The Softwood Lumber Soap Opera

The softwood lumber dispute is back!!!! In October 2015, the latest Softwood Lumber Agreement expired after essentially buying a little less than a decade of Canada-U.S. trade peace. Late last week, the two sides met in Ottawa to see if they could head off expensive trade litigation over the issue. They failed.

A new round of litigation will undoubtedly be coined Lumber V, meaning this is the fifth round of this long-running dispute. For those of you that haven't been following, the longevity of the softwood lumber dispute is shocking. Regardless of when you mark the start of each phase -- expiration of Agreements, negotiations, or initiation of litigation-- the intractability of this dispute can hardly fail to impress.

Lumber I, October 1982–April 1986
Lumber II, May 1986–December 1986
Lumber III, October 1991–April 1996
Lumber IV, April 2001–October 2006
Lumber V, October 2015-- Present


The outcome of last week's meeting should have been predictable to anyone that has followed this issue. It follows a depressingly familiar pattern. Much as a chef would draft a recipe for cookies, one can draft a recipe for this dispute. It goes something like this:

POTUS 2016 and The American Dream, Part II

In Part I of this post, I suggested Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had more in common than many have acknowledged. Here, I'd like to offer a bit of a diagnosis of those commonalities anchored in the contemporary challenges to the powerful national ethos and mythology swirling around the idea of the American Dream. 

De Tocqueville in America

ISBN 10: 1857151798

 Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835) remains one of the most important starting points for understanding the unique power behind the idea of the American Dream. Indeed, he begins his introduction to Volume 1 with an oft-quoted observation about equality:

Among the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exerci3ese on the whole course of society; it gives particular direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.

I soon perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character of the laws of the country, and that it has no less effect on civil society than on the government; it creates opinions, gives birth to new sentiments, founds novel customs, and modifies whatever it does not produce. (Volume I, Introduction, 3). 

POTUS 2016 and the American Dream, Part I

The American economy has been front-and-center in the 2016 campaign. In many ways, the rhetoric over economic policy fits a familiar mold I have written about repeatedly in these pages. Although foreign policy has featured prominently in this campaign, foreign policy seldom wins American elections. This contest is turning out to be no different. As former House Speaker Tip O'Neil famously quipped, "All Politics is Local."

Steve Benson, Arizona Republic, February 28, 2016

Yet, I sense something different in this cycle where economic policy is concerned. Popular angst about the institutions, leadership, and decision-making that have underwritten America's postwar prosperity is fueling insurgent candidacies that have spread like wildfire through both political parties—yes both political parties. For much of the past year, “expert” commentary has struggled to understand the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Everyone needs to eat some humble pie. It’s no exaggeration to say we all missed it. 


In recent months, there has been a lot of discussion of voter “anger,” “frustration,” or “disillusionment” as the fuel behind Trump’s support. Sure. However, I think both the diagnosis of what is happening and the prescriptions for solving the problems behind them are far more complex than most have been willing to acknowledge. With this post, I’d like to explore the ways in which the perceived unravelling of the American Dream is playing out on the campaign trail. For generations of Americans, the mythology of the American dream acted as a mollifying, stabilizing concept in American life. The 2016 presidential campaign is hardly the first cycle in which the American Dream has been declared dead or on the ropes. I think it’s too early to tell exactly where much of what I outline below is headed. Yet, it’s noxious and potent enough that it could have profound effects on America’s political economy (and the world’s) well into the future.

Rachel Notley Goes To Washington

In May of last year, I wrote a little piece for newly-elected Premier Rachel Notley offering my two bits on what a sub-federal government like Alberta ought to know about managing its interests in the United States (linked here).  Since Ms. Notley is in Washington this week, I thought I'd take the opportunity to do a bit of stock-taking.

In the spirit of the pile of seminar essays I just finished assessing, I'd offer a "B+" or "A-" to Premier Notley's early management of the U.S. file.

Malcolm Mayes, Edmonton Journal, April 28, 2016

I'd like to say I knew the Premier is a regular reader of my blog, or that I had a hotline to the Premier's office since a lot of what I recommended seems to have happened. I don't have a hotline and I doubt the premier is a fan. Moreover, pats on the back are hard to come by in academia, so I am going to shamelessly accept one for myself here.....

Some April Fools Election Levity....

I've started several posts on the 2016 campaign only to abandon them the next day because of some twist that makes saying anything conclusive about what's going on nearly impossible. Front and center is the soap opera (or tragic comedy) unfolding in the GOP. Every day brings a new twist in what increasingly looks like a huge train wreck headed for the GOP Convention floor in Cleveland later this summer. The Democrats continue to be more civil, but Bernie Sanders' victories continue to cast an important shadow over Hillary Clinton's mathematical inevitability as their convention in Philadelphia draws near.

If you are in a state of despair about the choices-- as I am--you could consider any number of write-in candidates, or hold out hope that a third party might enter the race.

One already has: Captain Obvious.

He's got the Commander in Chief uniform and political hand gestures down:

Beware of Populists Bearing Jobs....

The 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign has been one for the ages-- although not for the best of reasons. Particularly among Republicans, the debate of the 2016 campaign has put on display some of the ugliest facets of American political campaigns (see last post).

However, you'll be happy to know that a far more acceptable form of populist deceit in elections remains alive and well in both parties; the politics of opposition to trade liberalization. There's no comfort in that for those who see the merits of trade liberalization (myself included), but it could be construed as comforting for those who seek some refuge in something that makes sense to them in this campaign. The latest candidate skirmish on trade policy took place in the Democratic Debate in Flint, Michigan the other night; a rust-belt state, and ground zero for this kind of rhetorical mush.

Yet, in my view, there's good news ahead. The populist protectionism of the campaign has, in the postwar period, nearly always returned to default liberalism. Unfortunately for those that really buy into the rhetoric of protectionism, I have bad news for you; you're being lied to.

Let me explain.

In (slight) Defense of Incivility

There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the nastiness of this year's presidential primary season, especially on the Republican side of things. If you aren't up to speed, look no further than the most recent GOP debate held in South Carolina on February 13.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the downward spiral some believe we are on. I think the demolition derby we are watching has often been devoid of substance and hasn't always showed Americans at their best. Yet, to those who dismiss it all as just another sign of American decline, I'd like to suggest that they are missing something pretty important about how a lengthy, even nasty, process like this is pivotal in establishing a critical personal connection to candidates.

Energy Ministers Meeting: Reinforcing the Low Bar for Trilateralism....

This past Friday (February 12), North America's Energy Ministers got together in Winnipeg to announce a new trilateral effort on energy cooperation. The idealist in me reacted like this:

Hey, great. Perfect timing. The North American energy sector could use a boost. Moreover, the whole notion of 'trilateral' anything in North America seemed to have died. Was the Winnipeg announcement as sign of things to come? Was trilateralism being put back on life-support? Was it an early example of Prime Minister Trudeau's commitment to renew Canada's relationship with Mexico? 

Then, reality sinks in once again.....

Open Note to Trudeau 2.0 on North America

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,

It seems you are headed to Washington March 10 for a little soiree with President Obama. The President likes you and is getting his staff to throw a big party. A State Dinner; the first for a Canadian Prime Minister in nearly two decades. Good on you. But before you get too carried away with "reset buttons" with Washington, I'd like to make a simple plea.

Canada's most important interests can be found right here in North America. Washington is top of the list. However, if, as you claimed during your campaign, you are serious about revitalising "North America," I'd like to see you get on your plane March 11 and go to Mexico City.

The Obama Years.... My Two Cents

There's something about great political theater that makes it impossible to ignore. Debates, campaign speeches, congressional hearings,.... all of it great theater. State of the Union Addresses (SOTU) are no different, but Tuesday night's SOTU was special because it was President Obama's last. Obama's presidency will be debated and re-hashed by historians for years to come. But since I've been asked about the President's speech, and his legacy, in the days since, I thought I'd throw out a few early observations about his presidency as he heads for the exit.

The laundry list that follows is both incomplete and, in most cases, deserving of book-length treatment. Moreover, it's just my two cents.

Expectations
In 2008-2009, Barack Obama was electrifying. Full stop. A war-weary country looking over the cliff into a financial abyss, was hungry for change. Most didn't get what they were hoping for, including among many of the President's most ardent supporters. In many ways, it's not Obama's fault. It's ours. We expect too much of presidents. We imbue in them the capacity to do things that are extraordinarily difficult to achieve. A lot of that difficulty is intentionally built into the U.S. political system. For that, we have James Madison to thank. Yet, in my view, the expectations we heaped on President Obama went far beyond those we normally assign. I was among them. Like many, I am also disappointed in the last 7 years. But in many ways, our hyperinflated expectations set a standard of judgement that set us all up for disappointment.

Obama is a transformational figure because of who he is and what he represented as the nation's first African-American president. It was a presidency the country needed. But sadly, and undoubtedly because of some of my own inflated expectations, I'm not sure his presidency will be seen as especially transformative.