Democratic Separatism: Mostly Sore Losers

 I have been too busy with my current work on civ-mil to go back to the archives of my head, when I studied separatism.  But with the Albertan separation vote losing badly, it is time to go back to my old stuff.  There is a lot of political theory about when separatism is legitimate (see Allen Buchanan's stuff for a start), but my starting point is if the separatism is about being sore losers in an otherwise stable democracy, then the separatist effort has little legitimacy.

What precisely is the core grievance of the Albertan separatists?  Parties closest to them have mostly dominated Alberta, but haven't governed Canada since 2015.  The extreme federalism of Canada means that Albertans can largely govern themselves, that the feds can't really tell them how to run their health care system, their education system, etc.  And oil politics means that Alberta has a lot of power in Canada.  So, again, what is precisely the problem?

We can talk about misinformation/disinformation and how COVID broke people's brains, but the basic reality is that Albertans are secure in their rights.  The feds are not trying to abridge Albertans' rights, and now they have the most conservative  Liberal prime minister in recent history.  The Albertans are largely getting their way, including the end of climate change taxes and very pro-pipeline moves by Carney.  But they are, to use an online phrase, butthurt because the closest party to them keeps losing in national elections.  Whose fault is that?  Mostly the Conservative Party of Canada for agreeing to be led by the most punchable bad faith, Ted Cruz-esque actor who keeps trying to stake stances that make him the Trump of Canada.  So, their animus should be pointed at Poilievre, the CPC leader.

Instead, those voting for separatism are sore losers.  The fundamental definitional dynamic in democracy is accepting losing, figuring out how one can do better, and trying again.  The GOP in the US has completely lost the plot on this so they seek to game elections via voterfraudfraud.  There is much less support for Quebec separatism because they got damn everything they wanted at the bargaining table, and their biggest grievances wouldn't change with separation since the US will still be an English giant next door.  

The big question now is will the losers of the referendum realize that their cause is not popular and seek change through the political system or will they try to stir up shit via more referenda.  I hope for the former but would bet on the latter.

Anyhow, it is a good day to watch sore losers lose again. 

Wackiest Media Hits, Bad Memory Edition

 Yesterday, I had a new kind of media experience: where the interviewer argued with me.  It is one thing to be on a live tv or radio program and engage in a conversation with folks and find points of disagreement.  It is another thing for a reporter to call up, asking for my opinion and then rebut.  Especially when the rebuttal focuses on events in the 1840s and 1910s.

Let me explain.  I was contacted by Alternet, which seems to be a left-wing news site to comment on US-Canadian relations which are most fraught thanks to Trump.  I presented to the interviewer my take that, yes, things are very tense, that Canadian nationalism is activated, and Canadians, like most of the world, hate Trump.

The interviewer clearly had a narrative in mind and I was not going along with it. And to be sure, almost every interviewer has a narrative, but usually they don't spend a lot of time arguing why my point of view doesn't fit.

His point of view: the experience of the Zimmermann telegram plus the politics of the 1840s plus a Trump-encouraged successful secession by Alberta or Quebec would put US and Canada on the brink of war.  Oh my.  We first disagreed over whether the Z telegram caused by itself the US entry into WWI.  Yes, I knew that this captured communication from the Germans to Mexican authorities where the former were encouraging the latter to join their side in WWI, promising to give the former Mexican lands back played a big role in finally pushing the US in the war.  But I suggested that as far as I can recall, it wasn't just that.

Anyhow, the 1840s had Presidential candidate Polk promising to take Canadian territory (before there was a Canada) in the northwest part of the continent: 54'40" or fight referred to the future border of the US.  The interviewer suggested that this was thus a continuity in US politics from then to Trump, as if the past 180 years hadn't happened.  I argued that there was not much of a constituency these days for American northward expansion--that this was not even a key issue in far right politics, unlike opposing NATO in 2016.  

The third part of the premise was also problematic--Alberta and Quebec are not going to secede.  Indeed, Trump's support of their separatism, in true everything Trump touches turns to shit form, has helped reduce support for separatism.  Indeed, I don't think Canadians would be referring to Albertan separatism as potentially treasonous without the Trump support.  The polls show pretty clearly where all of this stands.

Together, the interviewer wanted to suggest that if the US efforts to support Albertan/Quebecois secession would be equivalent to the Zimmermann telegram, with Canada being the US and the US being German in the 21st century edition.  I poo-pooed with extreme prejudice.  Canada won't enter a war with the US if Alberta or Quebec secedes--secession in Canada is peaceful with only a couple of casualties AND the extreme power disparity will deter.

I also argued that Trump's Canada fixation is his and his alone.  That those who seek to replace him as leader of the MAGA cult will fail if they focus on Canada as most Americans just don't care about Canada, not even the far right.  The surveys have shown that while Trump has increased Republican distrust of Canada, that is still only a minority of Repubicans, and is not going to be the focus of an outbidding effort in future primaries.  

And yet the guy kept wanting to rebut me.  Oy.  

 I will have to try and see if I can remember even more batshit media experiences, but this one has to be near or at the top. 

Bad Apples and the Bad Apple Picking Machine

Whenever somebody does something wrong, the easiest thing to say is that, sure, there are a few bad apples.  I am reading Allan English's book right now about the failures of the Canadian Armed Forces to change, and it pushed me to write this, something I have been thinking about for awhile.

Where do bad apples come from?  Is it just the random input that a few get in?  Kind of hard to argue when the bad apples is referring to those at the very top of the military after years of "vetting" and promotions.  

But let's take the analogy seriously.  Bad apples can happen because:

1. just bad luck
2. the apple picking machine is broken
3. the apple picking machine is working in a bad orchard
4. the apple storage/treatment/processing facility makes them rotten.   

I have been thinking lately of #3 as the demise of twitter has also been on my mind.  Sure, it is run by the world's richest Nazi, but governments and other organizations can't seem to quit it.  This summer, when pushed, a government official said that they use twitter for recruiting.  And that was the most horrifying thing I heard.  Because who is on twitter now?  Bots (some silenced thanks to our Ukrainian friends), Nazis, and those who are comfortable hanging out in a Nazi bar.  So, if one uses twitter as a platform for recruiting, it is more likely these days that some of those recruited will be far right assholes than if one looked elsewhere for recruits.  It is just a math thing at this point.

I will say that while most of the blame is usually focused on bad luck, the CAF and similar orgs will think about recruiting--that far right people are eager to serve to learn skills they can use in the race war they are hoping to make happen.  So, except for the US Secretary of Defense, Nazi tattoos can be disqualifying.  The one that seems to be overlooked the most is #4--that there is something about the organization that radicalizes people.  We know that prison can do that, but I'd like for the various militaries to think seriously that maybe some folks enter their organizations and then become radicalized.  

Anyhow, this weekend of awesome apple pie and apple crisp (we cut up too many apples for just one deep dish pie recipe) has had me thinking of picking and processing my fave fruit.  Enjoy this apple season--go to the right orchards and be choosy and then take care of them when you get home.  Bad apples do a lot of damage so let's be careful out there. 

Retired Military Chief Launches Book: The Town Shows Up

Last night, my girlfriend and I attended the book launch of Gen. (ret) Wayne Eyre.  It was a very interesting night.  The actual speechifying was short, as Eyre identified and thanked a bunch of people in the room who were part of his career journey.  Eyre was known as the accidental CDS as he became the chief when his predecessor lost his position due to a credible accusation of sexual misconduct (that McDonald thought he was exonerated after the investigators said everyone was too drunk that night to prosecute demonstrated that McDonald was ill-suited for the job).  Taking the position with little preparation for the job, no handover by his predecessor, was immensely challenging, and I look forward to reading his take on that moment.  

I first met Eyre at an event at Queens University--the annual Kingston International Security Conference.  He was fresh off his tour in Korea and was just starting to be Army Chief.  Since then, I had many formal and informal meetings with him, including his appearing on the BattleRhythm podcast, interviewing him for my current project about Canada sans US, a phone call where he wanted to correct me about something I said on a different podcast episode (I was wrong because the government had not yet released its new policy, so my podcast became a venue for that announcement), standing next to him at the NATO summit in DC when Canada announced a lot more defence spending, and other events in Ottawa.  

I was not shy in these conversations about raising questions about his handling of the post, but to be clear, I have a heap of respect for how he served in that job.  The moment and the times were both quite challenging.  The sudden promotion, being CDS when a series of senior officers were disgraced, serving as chief as the world became much more threatening.  One of his most impressive characteristics was to be able to admit mistakes and course-correct as he went along.  He was thoughtful about the conflicting responsibilities he faced--to be an advocate for the Canadian Armed Forces but to respect civilian leadership and keep the CAF out of partisan politics.  Over the course of his tour, he became more outspoken about defence spending, which I found to be problematic.  

The book has already made a big splash as Eyre commented on his experiences with Justin Trudeau. Both in his comments to me as he signed my copy of the book and to the crowd, he indicated that the stories took things out of context.  For me, I am wondering how much of a violation of civ-mil norms it was, given that the document Eyre supervised as Chief of the Defence Staff about the responsibilities of the military profession, Fighting Spirit, includes retired officers (see text to the right).  I hope to find the time in the next few days to read the CDS chapters of his book so that I can evaluate this for myself.  

Despite the occasional disagreement with Eyre, I have immense respect for him. I have met all but one CDS since I started doing Canadian defence stuff in the mid 2000's--I have had amazing access here--Henault, Hillier, Natynczyk, Lawson, Vance, Eyre, and now Carignan.  Given the challenges, his very impressive learning curve, and his serious efforts to grapple with the conflicting imperatives of civil-military relations, I have come to see him as the best CDS during my time in Canada. I may or may not maintain that opinion after reading his book.  I lost a bit of respect for Robert Gates after reading his memoir, so we shall see.    

I was kind of surprised at how many people I knew at the event, although my girlfriend was not.  She gets that the defence community in Canada is pretty small.  So, she got to be introduced to the foreign minister/former defence minister Anita Anand, Senator Rebecca Patterson, Army Chief Mike Wright, former Ambassador Women, Peace, and Security (and cookie fan) Jacqueline O'Neill, and many others, and we had a delightful conversation with Jennifer Eyre, whom I met at a previous event. That Eyre got such great turnout, including the best Minister of National Defence of the past 20 years, says much about Eyre and how he treated the people around him.

Along the way, I learned about some new policy changes that may or may not improve civilian control of the military--something I will be looking into in the days ahead.  More on that sometime soon, I hope.