Something is Wrong!

Donald Trump self righteously said the world has been taking advantage of America and the solution is tariffs.  The world has indeed taken advantage of America, but somehow it has worked to the American advantage.

 When America formed they used tariffs to protect their new businesses which made a lot of sense as British goods could command a bigger share for consumers.  Over time with population increases and uncovering nature's bounty their economy grew and they became one of the participants negotiating free trade.  Their manufacturing actually produced more goods than Americans could consume.  The solution was to sell to the rest of the world, including third world countries.  Free fair trade in fact benefited everyone.

Parts of the world where the standard of living was lower than America found their advantage was cheap labor.  American investors soon discovered they could get a competitive advantage shifting manufacturing to poor countries.  In turn this helped elevate the living standards of these countries, examples include Japan and China.  In turn they became consumers of American manufactured goods.  

China, for one has accumulated enough wealth they are the chief lender for the United States government and at relatively low rates.  America has sanctioned a lot of adversaries such as Russia, Iran and China, but now the three have discovered they can trade among themselves to not only minimize  the damage, but prosper.  They have formed new trading groups involving such nations as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, India and many more.

The troubles in Ukraine and Palestine and inflation have distracted the world from an approaching life threatening issue, climate change.  Unfortunately it will require international co-operation.  We have already lost some options and the solutions may end up being more drastic that will attract resistance.  

Mr. Trump presents himself as a business genius and some people think the disastrous situation he has created will allow him to use sharp negotiations to at least make America great again.  His record is not impressive to some of us.  One example is bankrupting casinos that are considered a license to print money.  He has offered a large number of products that all failed.  His sales college used illegal tactics that hurt victims and he had to pay $25 MILLION dollars.  When the unexpected Covid 19 pandemic hit he dangerously botched it.  The consequences of his mismanagement is still costing Americans.

Obama took over an economic mess and left Trump a rising economy.  Even before Covid, Trump managed to greatly increase the deficit and afterwards left another mess.  The Biden administration actually got things going in the right diretion better than any other G7 nation.

It is past time when member nations need to work together.  Americans (and we in Canada and the rest of the western world) have a much higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world.  We have in fact exploited poorer nations.

Two areas that gather a lot of words, but allow suffering are Ukraine and Palestine.  Ukraine was illegally invaded by Russia and somehow Trump leads Republicans to lean more towards the anti-democratic invaders.  Israel has roots in over a hundred years, but one detail that seems to be forgotten, the Arabs were already there and naturally resented the intruders.  Trump has suggested expelling the Palestinians to make room for a resort area.  A sense of justice is required.

It is upsetting to hear Trump supporters twist logic.  Most of them are descended from immigrants who were seeking a better life and for the most part succeeded.  Of course as climate change and wars have hit more countries United States is not only seen as a chance to raise living standards, but also as a safe place. Ironically America will need immigrants to replace aging workers and who contribute to pensions.

America has attained its high standard of living in part by exploiting other nations.  The world has now developed its own leverage.   Now with AI and robotic innovations eventually the world will need less human labor that likely aggravate inequality.

Time for Americans and the rest of us to re-think what we really need.  Trump has to go.

Empty Planet

Over 50 years ago I took a course in demographics.  A lot has changed since then.  Then, we had gone through the baby boomers and a lot of experts agreed there was danger in being overpopulated, but some thought there were some natural brakes 

The two authors studied lots of statistics, but more importantly traveled around the world and talked to a variety not only of experts, but also to ordinary people (if a little better educated).  Recently saw both with Steve Paikin on the tv show "The Agenda" 5 years after publication of "Empty Planet" (2019).

Two factors have emerged in almost every nation to account for declining birth rates:  the education (and empowerment) of women and urbanization.  For ages having children was good for helping on the farm, but in the city children are more of an expense.  Women are at long last learning how to avoid burdensome motherhood and enjoy life more.

The replacement rate for women to replicate themselves is 2.1 meaning they need to have 2 babies each plus a little more to allow for those who don't have any or only 1.  Almost all of the developed world is below that number and even in most of the developing world the number is also declining.  The global population has been climbing because of longevity increases and parts of the world where women have more than two babies.  The authors contend that previous estimates are far higher than the reality and declining population will be dramatic.

It is not necessarily a bad thing, however there will be some negative effects. 

Young people are innovators and older people are expensive with pensions and medical care while fewer people to generate the economy and provide services.

China after their experience with their one child policy are stuck with millions of men unable to find a female partner because when only allowed one child and with the Chinese strong preference for boys and many girls were abandoned.  Many ended up adopted overseas.  During the policy years both men and women learned that sterilization was the most effective birth control. 

Brazil telenovelas effected women of all social classes if they watched them.  The families depicted were small and the women all seemed to have more freedom.  They appealed to both rich and poor.

Infertility is another factor.  Naomi Klein in an effort to get pregnant learned about fertility issues.  Chemical pollution is correlated to infertility, birth defects and miscarriages.  see   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/02/this-changes-everything-deserves-major.html

Both authors are Canadian and have noticed historical factors that have boosted population.

Clifford Sifton was the Canadian interior cabinet minister from 1896 to 1905 under Wilfrid Laurier and both were concerned that Americans were pushing towards the western border with Canada.  The government took some immigration employees off salary and put on commission.  Under Sifton, immigration authorities approached Scandinavia, Germany, Balkans, and Ukraine enticing many who helped secure the border against Americans.

On the other hand the government stopped Chinese immigrants after they had been instrumental in building the national railway.  Jews from the St Louis ship were sent away and during World War II the Japanese were forced into internment camps.

Eventually the Chinese were allowed to migrate and Canada developed a reputation for helping refugees including Hungarians after 1956, the Vietnamese fleeing war conditions and the Syrians during their Civil War and most recently Ukrainians.  The government uses  a point system that evaluates which refugees or would be immigrants can help Canada.  We also accepted a multi cultural life style that was more comfortable for non English immigrants..

My ancestors came to North America by boat from England, Scotland and Switzerland and some shifted from the United States by horse or on foot.  My wife Sharon's ancestors also came by boat from Italy and Ukraine.

Quebec has a delicate situation because they not only needed to boost population, but wanted to maintain their French culture.  They targeted French west Africa.  My Brother in law, Ali came from Morocco to Ontario for education.  After he married my sister the plan was to go to Morocco, however a stopover in Montreal offered a compatible situation with more Moroccans and as he was fluent in French (English and Arabic) the decision was made to live in Quebec.  Their house proved to be an enjoyable stopover on my way to Nova Scotia to visit my daughter in school and develop a sales job and then he helped me open up Quebec for sales and vacationing.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/travels-of-salesman-part-3-quebec.html

The U.S. needs immigrants to maintain their standard of living, but some politicians (example Donald Trump) think a key to getting elected is to cater to prejudices.  Most of American Nobel prize winners were immigrants.  Soon America will find it more difficult to attract necessary immigrants as many will find conditions at home better and there will be fewer of them. 

 Incentives do make a difference, but not nearly enough.  Paternity leave, tax deductions even cash bonuses have to compete against other factors.

 IVF is one tool to help slow down the decline.  For those who were without hope there is now hope   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/11/joy-film-about-ivf.html

Environmentalists have pointed out a major cause of climate change has been the burgeoning over- population.  Urbanization can be good for the environment.  High rise apartments can be more energy efficient and allow traffic to be more manageable.

The population mix has changed gradually, but seems certain to bend towards less with a greater proportion to the older.  The right to work legislation and the generosity of pensions likely will be adjusted.  We truly are all part of this change and perhaps we will act more compassionately as well as rational.  

Peace by Chocolate

 This is a Canadian story, but brought to my attention by an American friend, Janet Gefre.  It is really not just a Canadian story, but sets a good example for the world.

Chocolate is one my weaknesses.  How about you? 

Syria has been in the news.  The point for this story is the huge numbers of refugees created.  With the help of Russia, Syria has maintained chaos in the Middle East.  In this case the Hadhad family was non political.  The father, Isham had a love of chocolate that resulted in building a factory employing fellow Syrians.  They were in business for 30 years and shipped all over the Middle East.  When the Arab Spring started, the Syrian government in 2012 openly suppressed parts of the country.  Bombings and deaths were too close for comfort including their own factory.  The Hadhads headed for Lebanon where they were safe, but restricted.

The eldest son, Tareq had studied medicine and was only about a year from graduating.  He managed to be identified as a possible immigrant, but to Canada, a place he had never considered.

In the meantime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had declared that Canada was going to accept Syrian refugees.  That upset some, but he felt that they would help to offset demographic changes in the country.  A church group in the small town of Antigonish decided they wanted to participate and started organizing.  Most refugees imagined they would be better off in the big cities.

Finally Tareq was given the go ahead with the promise that he would be able to have his parents come later.  In the middle of December he was confronted with Canadian weather and found himself shoveling snow.  He learned that his medical education would not count towards being a Canadian doctor.  He would have to start from scratch. 

He focused his energy on the chocolate business and set high standards for quality.  His father Ishem soon arrived and helped move the idea forward.  Realizing their cultural and language limitations they worked with This is Marketing.  It was Neil Stephen who came up with the name Peace by Chocolate.  Christian Allaire came up with the slogan "One peace won't hurt."

Before they had a factory going and quickly needed a bigger one. which they decided to stick with Antigonish.  They have achieved nation wide distribution.  Justin Trudeau told the world about the contribution of this Syrian immigrant.  Shortly Tareq not only met Trudeau he also met with Barrack Obama who was impressed.

Tareq also had siblings brought over and they each adjusted to the cultural differences.  There were few hijabs around, but Antigonish also got used to it.  

They were grateful for Canada and the citizens of Antigonish.  3.5% of their profits go to Peace on Earth Society.  The idea came after the Fort McMurray wild fires and they held fundraising to help the evacuees.  In 2018 they registered the name with the Nova Scotia government to support other projects across Canada and further to help the cause of peace.

Jon Tattrie, the author has a Master's Writing degree from University of King's College and is a journalist at CBC Halifax.  He has written two fictional and 5 non fiction books.  Subjects have included Cornwallis, and Mi'kmaq history.  Recognized that likely some of the women to be interviewed held back arranged for his wife (also works for CBC) to interview them.  I had wondered how authors claim to know the feelings of their characters, but in this case he is reporting what they told him.  

My own experiences with Syrians has been recounted elsewhere.  My regular mechanic had repeatedly tried to deal with a tire leak.  At a gas station I was steered towards a man who claimed he could fix it.  True enough the problem was solved and the next tire problem I had was taken directly to him.  I learned he was a Syrian.  When Canada treats immigrants right we all benefit.

Japan Sinks: People of Hope Emigration on a national scope

There is a scarcity of my normal information available, but thinking the themes and execution are worth exploring here are some random thoughts on "Japan Sinks:  People of Hope" (2021 ) available on Netflix.
  

The original "Japan Sinks" book was published in 1973 and won several literary awards for science fiction author Sakyo Komatsu  and was concerned with an actual sinking of land.  It has been adapted a few times over the years and this version reflects current concerns.  Without giving away the plot this version has attached climate change and global pandemics to the sinking.  

But it goes beyond actual geo/biological disasters and explores the possible political and social implications.  Fiction, especially science fiction has the ability to make us think--what if?  Because some of those what ifs are more relevant than we might realize. 

When the Japanese came up with the concept they projected from their circumstances.  As an island nation with a history of severe earthquakes they have always felt vulnerabilities that have only been exasperated by rising seawater.  In the first episodes a scientist declares the area around Tokyo is going to sink below the water and this later is projected  to include the whole island.  Right away some people want to suppress information in order to preserve business--as one politician declares the economy is the basis for society.  Perhaps that may touch a few nerves as we notice  the stresses on our economy by the Covid 19 pandemic.

Some people see the disaster as an opportunity.  Stocks go up or down by inside information.  Properties are sold before the market disappears.  Politicians legitimately want to avoid rattling the population so that rational moves can be made and of course information and misinformation soon cause panic.

The film focuses on people who try to deal positively with the problem and learn to adapt to ever rising new aspects to the problem.  A government environmentalist and a journalist work together with scientists and even corporate leaders.

In their case someone decides the most practical solution would be massive immigration with in effect eco refugees.  Today we are aware of strong resistance to immigration as the established citizens fear hordes of strange people imposing on their lives.  The Japanese in particular are resistant to immigration.

They approach several countries and at first are rejected, however the idea of locating major Japanese corporations in Japantowns demonstrates they could be benefits to recipient countries.

The first time it has been suggested that an entire nation (and not a poor one) would relocate.  There always seems to be a conflict when newcomers try to fit into a new neighborhood.  They succeed in getting international co-operation but have trouble convincing many of their citizens from leaving home to live in a strange country where the language and customs may be frightening.  

To be fair the immigration program is to be decided by lottery.  Various schemes run into opposition, but are smoothed out.  A complication comes later in the series (a bit of a spoiler, but helpful to develop the theme) with a global pandemic being attributed to Japan.  As you can imagine by our reaction to a variant in South Africa this puts a damper on the entire immigration program.  In this fictional version the Japanese talent for innovation alleviates the concern and even boosts their desirability.

Many of my readers may recall having to leave one's first home and many more are where they are because some of their ancestors had to make the decision to leave their home environment on a leap of faith.  This film paints a stark picture, but we should all realize our future could easily force similar decisions on us and our descendants.  "People of hope" in the title refers to the persistence of politicians an scientists despite very difficult obstacles.

The presentation is very thought provoking and will try to credit some of those who contributed. 

Based on famed science fiction writer Sakyo Komatsu book of 1973. He had been born in 1931 and thus was a teenager when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  He studied Italian literature at Kyoto University.  In 1961 entered science fiction contest and wrote a story as if Japan had not lost in 1945, but focused on one man's defence.  Writing his famous book in 1973 it sold 4 million copies in Japan and was adapted to an American film, "Tidal Wave" (1973).   Another of his books was also adapted to the United States. "Bye Bye Jupiter" in 1984.  A quote I would like to share, “I sometimes wonder if our intolerant territoriality is really justifiable on this planet, where continents are constantly drifting.”

Hiroshi Hashimoto has been credited with writing the script to fit today's understanding.  He has been involved writing scripts since 1989. 

The lead actor is Shun Oguri plays a government official in an environment department that warns the government of impending danger and has to be persuasive and innovative to work around the dilemma.  Last year he won an award as most popular actor.  He started with films in 1995 at age 13 and has over 100 credits.

 Jun Kunimura plays one of the stern politicians resisting moving too fast.  Ironically Jun's first movie was An American edited version of the original "Submersion of Japan" (1973).  Not only has he appeared in Japanese films, but also American and Korean including "Kill Bill"(2003 and 2004), "Like Father, Like Son" (2013) and "The Wailing" (2016),

Ken-ichi Matsuyama, played another progressive politician.  Ken-ichi started in films 2002 with over 80 credits including "Norwegian Wood" (2010). 

Teruyuki Kagawa plays the obnoxious scientist raising the alarm against political opposition.  He has won a fe  His films inlude "Quill:  The Life of a Guide Dog" (2004), "Key of Life" (2012)  He won several national awards.  He comes from a family of Kabuki actors and is involved himself.

Anne Watanabe plays the journalist and close friend to the leading man.  She is the daughter of famous actor Ken Watanabe,

The actual series had the fourth episode delayed as it coincided with the Japanese election   Netflix is planning to bring two more Japanese series to their schedule in near future.

Outer space exploration has had as one motive the desire for more space.  It is to be hoped that mankind doesn't blow up or otherwise destroy our home planet. It is unlikely mankind would ever be able to transport millions to outer space colonies.  Maybe send up embryos as proposed by some science fiction authors.  

How I reconnected to science fiction: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/09/conversion-can-sneak-up-on-you-too.html

I have bolded the first mention of movies that I have seen, partly for vanity, but also to assure you I have some familiarity. 

A GOOD PROVIDER IS ONE WHO LEAVES

An interesting story, but also has an interesting story behind the story.  The title comes from a remark to the author's question if the separation from her husband was it all worth while:  "A good provider is one who leaves".  Not what most of us would want, but is critical to survival of many poor people. 

The research started with another project.  In 1986 Jason was given a fellowship from the Henry Luce Foundation to study poverty in the Philippines.  He needed a place to stay.  He ended up with a woman whose husband was working overseas in Saudi Arabia.  After awhile he left, but kept in touch with the whole family.  He found himself not only recording events, opinions, but also being an advocate.  The New York Times gave him the opportunity to report about migrants.

Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippine autocrat to retain power declared martial law and came up with the idea of sending out surplus workers to foreign lands on contract.  They would then send home money.  As many countries discovered this became a vital part of a nation's GDP.

At first most of the work migrants were men and an unexpected consequence was that the wives left home acquired more prestige and power.  A reversal came when the demand for nurses grew and Filipinos were well positioned to take advantage.  This often resulted in men adjusting (and some not adjusting well) to not being the bread winner.  Couples separated by national boundaries or dealing with reversal of normal bread winning patterns were under stress.

Nurses are in demand, but the supply has changed over the years.  At one time they were one of the few professions that women could make a decent income with.  Over time as other occupations opened up, nursing became chosen by fewer women.   It is not a low income career, but to meet American needs they need to import migrants.  Most are well educated and perhaps because of that they often get a higher income than domestic nurses.

Jason was able to visit many of the children of his original landlady and talk about their working in the Middle East and the United States.  There were many stresses and adjustments.  Many of the migrants have settled in the United States and each generation is more assimilated.

Some of the relatives end up in the cruise ship industry where America had taken advantage of immigrants who get much less pay and benefits.  There is a dramatic example of the ordeal of one relative who was injured on the job and went through desperate measures to save a leg which failed and then fought with insurance to get support which was eventually delivered, but with an uncertain future.

Immigration has become an election issue and Jason gives some historical perspective.  New immigrants work harder, commit less crime, bring cultural diversification.  Houston is one of the most diverse cities in America with 1/4 of population foreign born and 1/3 of work force.   There are countervailing forces in both American parties.  The Democrats are supported by ethnic groups that want more immigration while unions are against because of lowering wages.  The Republicans  are the party of business which wants lower wages, but also of traditionalists who are uncomfortable with change.

A question Jason brings up is "Do immigrants complement natives or substitute them."  Many factors are considered.  To-day with easy travel, Skype and their own ethnic networks, assimilation is slower.  For many native the immigrants bring welcome cultural items while others are resentful.  More immigrants are better educated than previous generations.  Inter-marriage is inevitable and help eventually to alleviate the stresses.

Donald Trump personifies an anti-immigrant trend in the United States.  He identified a fear and hatred of immigration and minorities and pushed it very explicitly.  With the electoral college the anti-immigrant voters had enough votes to put Trump into power.  Brexit succeeded in great part because of fear of immigrants taking jobs and changing culture and this was further aggravated by large numbers of Syrian refugees invading Europe.  Ironically immigration is the most practical counter balance to low birth rates in most Western nations. 

Originally read this book as a study on immigration, but found myself more engaged than usual.  A few personal connections to Filipinos reinforced my interest.  A friend had a good experience with a Filipino nanny when dealing with their first born.

Selling a product that was a hard sell to most people was told by a pet retailer that Filipino maids were advocates for dog tooth brushes as they had voluntarily taken on that responsibility and determined my product was the best.

I recall a Singapore movie, "Ilo Ilo" (2013) involving Filipino nanny and showed some of the family tensions.  A Singapore child became more attached to the nanny while her family was in stress.  The actress chosen for the role did not announce her own pregnancy and the script was re-written to work that into the story.

When I was working on a basketball project I was invited to a game where busloads of Filipinos came to Toronto for a game and other festivities.  Except for the two referees I was the only non Filipino in the crowd.  I was introduced to a player of the Montreal team who had left Philippines to avoid pressure from gamblers.  It was easy to see he was a game changer and the Toronto fans appreciated his talent.  Filipinos love basketball and this was confirmed years later.  More on the Filipino and other immigrant contributions to the Canadian game of basketball:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/03/my-basketball-projects-part-two.html

A driving force of my blogging and research is why and how did I end up here.  When first delving into my family tree I became aware of people crossing the Atlantic Ocean from different parts of England;  Devon, Cornwall and Yorkshire directly to Canada.  The Davidson name is Scottish and I encountered  some Scottish  listed on census.  One of my Grandmother's families came from Ireland, but had been migrants from Scotland.  I think most of them must have been relatively poor and saw an opportunity to better themselves.  Going back further I discovered some of my ancestors fled to the United States for religious reasons--some were Pilgrims and others Mennonites.  It seems likely I have countless unknown cousins in America, but some of them left, in some cases possibly as some version of United Empire Loyalists and in the case of the Mennonites to assure youngsters not forced into military.  Long before I was born it could be said my family had been assimilated.  More on my Mennonite connection:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/biggest-surprise-in-my-family-tree.html

My wife's family's treks to Canada were more recent.  One part came from Italy in 1916 (in the midst of World War I) at first through Ellis Island and met up with other Italians and most came to Canada and some went back to the States.  Another segment came from Ukraine and were shipped out to a cold winter in western Canada in early part of the 20th century.  Both the Italians and Ukrainians with a little bit of internal migration and inter-marriage with outsiders settled down.  They have managed to keep a few of their traditions, but it is safe to say they have also assimilated.   Both Italians and Ukrainians (and others they mixed with, specifically Hungarian, Serbians, English) were resented and restricted, but now are accepted as good Americans and Canadians.

A good read for a better understanding of the immigration political issue, the economic consequences and maybe like myself you will find yourself wondering how you ended up wherever you are right now.

TRUMP PERSONIFIES SHORT TERM THINKING

Trump is not the only one guilty of short term thinking.  For instance I have indulged in it too often.  Furthermore pretty much all of you have occasionally exercised short term thinking.

When we get up in the morning most of us have a routine which is a good way to start the day, but sometimes it gets interrupted and our first thought is how to get back to what we were expecting.  A lot of our day is to get through to the next expected thing.

When it comes to things like getting married, getting a job, living a long healthy life, saving up for something more costly than our pay cheque, dealing with an unco-operative foreign nations, or global crises it pays to give some forethought to the matter and generally the more consistent we are in these efforts the more successful are the results.  On a national scale when there are serious problems all eyes and ears go to the leader.  Leaders do all sorts of things that we don't know and don't care about, but when it comes to life and death or our financial survival we look for guidance from our leaders.

The Covid-19 pandemic is one example.  It took quite awhile for Trump to recognize it as a national threat and the first we heard were efforts to dismiss and later to blame others.  We learn he had unpacked some of the preparations made by Obama.  Other nations identified it as a threat and took steps to deal with it.  Trump fairly soon identified it as a threat to his re-election, particularly when it effected job statistics and the stock market, his measures of success.  His focus has been on how to minimize the danger.  One recurring theme was that tests only made the situation worse by revealing more cases.  Other nations realized they needed to get a grip on the real facts before deciding on a course of action.  Instead of taking a tough stance and setting an example Trump continues to downplay the health dangers.

Lately Trump has come to realize that schools serve as a sort of baby sitter that allows parents to work without worry.  That is true.  But it is more complicated.  Although youngsters are apparently not as vulnerable as healthy adults, they are vulnerable and some are dying plus they are also carriers to those more susceptible.  Their teachers, school janitors, school bus drivers, etc are more vulnerable, but are necessary for children to get the full learning experience.  Parents are protective of their children and would need to be reassured that the danger is manageable, but Trump belittles many guidelines.  Parents are afraid for themselves.

Other leaders intuitively understand that the solution to the problems of the economy has to take a back seat to controlling the virus.  A long term strategy is to listen to experts, keep measuring results and set a good example.  Leaders who fail in this should be kept away from power.

This crisis is only one example, but as one of life and death it will not be ignored by all rational people.  Unfortunately it mirrors other examples.

Tax cuts are a short term action.  Of course everyone likes a little more money in their pocket and it has been constantly promoted that the wealthy are job creators.  First many wealthy people are not big job creators and put their money in safe places such as government bonds which their taxes would have minimized the need for.  Others calculate how they can optimize their profits such as more automation, company buybacks, more dividends and giving themselves raises.

Two impacts are important.  First the deficit grows meaning the government has to borrow more money and pay interest.  Second and related is they have less money to pay for programs and it is all too often programs that benefit the poor, but everyone loses a bit and the government has less flexibility for emergencies.

John Maynard Keynes had the idea that when times were good, the government should maintain taxes and let a surplus develop.  Taxes helped to curb inflation and encourage innovation.  When things inevitably turned down, it was a good time to cut taxes so that consumers would be encouraged to spend more.  Trump and his Republicans ignored that in a short term desire for personal gain.

Climate change is another area for long term thinking.  A short term strategy employed by those in power is to optimize profits from fossil fuels.  A long term strategy would require re structuring and inconvenience for many.  But if not done the long term result would be disastrous.  It is one of those things where the expenses for necessary changes increases exponentially the longer they are ignored.

Along the same line is pollution control.  Pollution cleanup should be paid for by the ones who create it, but such cleanup would raise prices or cut profits.  De-regulation is a regular promise of Republicans, but in most cases they really want to do away with protections.  The real costs of pollution include life threatening disease.

Racist immigration policies may make some of his base happy, but there are long term consequences.  To others, not necessarily racists he is appealing to their fears of terrorism.  Americans, like most modern industrial economies are not replacing themselves and so with an aging population there are fewer people to perform taken for granted services.  Plus there are many jobs considered undignified.  At the other end technology experts are coming from Third World Countries.  If a door is closed people look for alternatives.  Canada has been one of the beneficiaries, but there are others.

When the inadequacies of short term solutions become more obvious hopefully there is still time to plan long term.

The real scary thing is the only way a short term thinking candidate could get elected (disregarding the Electoral College and the Mueller Report) was by getting the support of other short term thinkers.  The irony is short term thinking hurts everyone.  We all do it, but first we need to recognize it and make a conscious effort to think long term.  The more long term thinkers the world has the better chance we will all survive.  Even if the majority of us are short term thinkers we benefit from long term thinking leaders.  I fervently hope voters take a long term viewpoint before the November election.

the photo is from an installation by Edwin Dam and Veronica De Nogales at Hamilton Harbour.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AMERICAN ELECTION

Although there is increasing acceptance of climate change, both major political parties seem reluctant to prioritize it.  Of course the Republicans are loaded with climate change deniers, but Democrats are reluctant to be too boisterous about the issue.

One candidate Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington state made it his priority and he was one of the first to drop out.  He did make a point and campaigned for a debate exclusively on climate change, but would not have qualified for it.  His efforts have encouraged other candidates to offer plans for combating climate change.  Perhaps if the Democrats win there will be a national role for him.

A suggestion to have a a debate devoted entirely to climate change was voted down by the Democrats who were forced to accept a sequential town hall discussions with one candidate at a time.  Part of the reason might be not to offend potential donors.  Another part might be to not offend some voters.

The Republicans are indebted to the fossil fuel industry.  Trump at least once admitted that the economic consequences were on his mind and warned voters of the danger.  Of course the economic consequences of not dealing with the challenge are even greater.  Innovative energy solutions are disruptive to the fossil fuel industries, see:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/03/the-innovators-dilemma.html

The role of money, not only regarding climate change, but of many issues (gun control, healthcare, education, prisons) is overwhelming the concept of democracy.  Al Gore pointed out that America has to fix democracy before they can fix the climate crisis.    See:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/11/an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power.html

The Republicans are trying to make immigration the key issue as well as touting economic growth.  Racial innuendo is prevalent and has worked in previous elections. 

Fear works.  Voters are reluctant to take risks.  Fear mongering is dangerous.  Educated voters are aware of climate change and find scientists more credible than politicians with vested interests.   On the other hand many voters feel a vested interest themselves or fear life style changes or are wrapped up with other issues (abortion, immigration, gun rights, gay rights) or don't yet take it seriously.

This election cycle is already ahead of previous elections in covering climate change.  It seems not only to be the most serious issue confronting mankind, but also a key to a Democratic victory.  The Republicans are ridiculing aspects of it mostly centering on costs and inconveniences.  Short term thinking appeals to all of us to some extent, but mankind reached our present status with long range thinking.

In a previous election the Democrats had given out tire gauges to remind people they could improve gas mileage by inflating tires to optimal level and were ridiculed.   With plastic straws attracting negative attention from environmentalists, the Trump team sold them as the idea of not allowing "liberals" to change their life style.  Another remembered example was protesting new more efficient light bulbs.  The Democrats need to turn the Republican strategies on their head.  Ridicule can work both ways.

When fear is activated people are willing to change their life style.  The solutions to climate change are pictured as job threatening not only to the fossil fuel corporations, but also to auto industry, airlines, mining, agriculture, etc.  The truth is renewal energy will require lots of jobs.  More important in the long term is a healthier, safer environment.

There are other issues that voters should factor in.  Andrew Yang has pointed out that immigrants are not the threat to jobs that robots are, see:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/08/rise-of-robots.html  Education, health, nuclear proliferation, inequality and even immigration.

Naomi Klein has some points about how different groups can co-ordinate better for mutual aims.  She also feels like Al Gore that democracy needs to be addressed, but feels it can and should be tackled simultaneously.  It will take a unified effort.
http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/05/naomi-klein-writes-another-insightful.html

Jared Diamond examines national crises--worth reading

Personal crises offer a key to understanding national crises.  There are important similarities and critical differences.  I found "Upheavel" to be the most rewarding read so far this year.

Jared identifies six countries that he has spent time in and that offered an historical crisis that allowed for useful analysis. 

"Findlandization" has been something derogatory but the author feels that it has been taken out of context.  Although they made many concessions to the Russians, they were able to maintain a liberal democracy and industrialize themselves effectively. 

Chile suffered a bloody coup in 1979 with some support from the United States.   I remember a very interesting movie "No" that explained the advertising campaign.  The initial problem was that 17 groups all wanted access to limited tv airtime.  An advertising executive (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) was able to present a unified message that worked to avoid a constitutional amendment that would have extended Pinochet's dictatorship.  One victim of the coup made his way to a newspaper I worked for, the Oakville Journal Record.  In Chile Alan Lathrop had been a reporter who once interviewed Charles De Gaulle.  He became the advertising manager and a friend of my boss. 

Indonesia  was the newest nation in the study and as a group of widespread islands with many languages did not initially have a national feeling, but has developed one since.  Jared recounts an early dictatorship and some mass killings.  I am reminded of another movie  "The Look of Silence" (2014) was a multi national effort regarding the genocide in the 1960's. This film would not be possible without careful political manoeuvring, luck and courage.  Originally  the director Joshua Oppenheimer, set out to talk with victims of the genocide, but circumstances encouraged them to talk to perpetrators.  Surprisingly they boasted of their deeds in front of their own relatives.  Adi Rukan a brother of one of the victims actually confronted many of the perpetrators.  Horrifying tales of killing "Communists" mutilating and drinking of blood.  Told very matter of factly.  The protagonist was an optometrist and actually tested some of the perpetrators and provided glasses.  Many of the perpetrators and their families either justified what was done or avoided responsibility with some boasting on camera.

Australia was originally colonized by convicts, then British citizens were allowed in an effort to keep it for British only.  Next they allowed in northern Europeans.  World War II helped them to start realizing they could not depend on mother Britain to prosper.  When the United Kingdom joined Europe in the formation of the European Common Market they were forced to give up Commonwealth trade arrangements.  At this point they began to realize their future was going to be tied more to Asia and the United States.  The author had visited when restaurants were bland with a few exceptions, but years later after immigration opened up a wider variety of cuisine.  Immigration from Asia and trade has increased to raise the standard of living for all Australians.

Jared analyzes Japan in two parts.  The first was after western traders forced themselves on Japan and it was realized they were powerless to stop the cultural invasion.  They decided to strengthen themselves by learning more of modern western technology by visiting Europe and America and accepting visitors.  Eventually they acquired enough power to defeat European powers in the early twentieth century.

They then became arrogant and thought they could take on the American military.  This ended in an humiliating catastrophe.  They were industrious and within a few decades were the second strongest economy in the world.  They are at a crossroads now.  The government carries an enormous debt, although most of it is to their own citizens and corporations.  They still are resented by China and South Korea due mainly to war time atrocities.  Jared contrast the Japanese response to their wartime defeat with Germany.  Germany has been more open and accepting responsibility to their own citizens.  Furthermore Jared cites a sincere apology from Willy Brandt who fell on his knees in contrition at what Germany had done in the war.  Japan has not done anything comparable.

Another contrast between Germany and Japan deals with their attitudes towards immigration.  Germany has accepted immigrants over the years, partly to maintain a vibrant work force.  During the recent Syrian crisis they accepted more refugees than any other country.  They are sure to have problems, but on the whole it will be good for Germany both economically and culturally.  Japan has always tried to maintain their racial purity and even today are reluctant to open up the gates.  It has been pointed out to me that Japan has opted for more reliance on robots to replace retired workers--a key factor behind my investment in Honda  contrast with Germany

United States has benefited from many advantages.  It has an inland water network that allows for cheap transportation and two coasts (actually 3 like Canada) that had protected them from invasion.
Immigration has enriched them economically and culturally.  Democracy has worked well for them, although decisions are slower, they tend to make better ones over time.

The Americans are also at a crisis point and many factors that could undermine them.  Number one is a diminishing willingness to compromise.  Politically many developments have led to polarization.  The expense of campaigns have forced politicians to spend more time fund raising than discussing issues with opponents while modern air travel has meant that many of their families stay back home with less social interchange with other congressional families.  Polarization extends to the general population that can now watch tv channels that reinforce their views.  Residential pattern and even martial choices are heavily influence by political affiliations.

Another factor is low voter turnover.  United States unlike other countries requires voters to be registered and opened opportunities to suppress undesired voters.  A large turnout gives greater credibility to the government.
 
The American government has less investment in education and infrastructure than other industrialized countries where teachers have higher standards, but also more pay and prestige.   Immigration has been a key strength of U.S. and is needed more than ever to maintain population and economic growth.  Immigration is a positive for such things as childcare and scientific innovation.

America has become arrogant disdaining the idea that they could learn from other nations.   The author surprised me by stating that America could learn lots from Canada and then Europe and then the rest of the world.  Under Donald Trump America has been disengaging from multi lateral organizations that in truth need to be strengthened for current and future crises.

In short, "...fundamental problems are polarization, voter turnout and obstacles to voter registration, inequality and declining social mobility and declining government investment and public goods."
 
Crises for the whole world.  One that the author worries most about is the danger of a nuclear conflict.  Jared itemizes four ways it could happen and that even with the Cold War over the danger is greater than ever.  With Trump backing out of existing agreements the dangers have increased further since this book's 2019 publication.  

Climate change is real.  Jared points out that all energy sources have disadvantages, but that global powers need to start moving away from fossil fuels.  He does make a case for nuclear power by accepting risks.  The real force needed is conservation pointing to Europe's attitude towards gas guzzling vehicles.  Cars and gas are taxed to discourage wasted fuels.

Another global crisis is the inevitable depletion of natural resources.  Some are finite while others such as forestry and fish are renewable, but poorly managed.  Although overpopulation is a factor, a bigger factor is that the well off countries consume about 32 times as much resources as the poor nations.  To compound the situation third world people are increasingly aware of the inequities.  Westerners sometimes picture the poor as a big "problem" instead of admitting the rich are the ones who created the problem. 

Government is disparaged by many who think they are corrupt or incompetent and should not be able to dictate our lives.  Jared points out that governments have been in existence for over 5,000 and were formed for two purposes:  1). to monopolize force to maintain peace and 2) to redistribute wealth for greater aims which could be to enrich the rich or for the greater good o society.  We need to keep those purposes in mind on a global framework.

Jared took 6 years for this book, but realizes the case studies are selective and not random.  He would like to see his studies expanded as we all need to better understand how crises can be better handled.  The book contains lots of easy to understand analysis with interesting personal observations.

THE SHOWMAN AND THE REALITY

The Wizard of Oz is one of my all time favorite movies, a bit dated, but with some enduring values.  The Wizard himself was a nice enough guy who projected power that awed his subjects.  Dorothy was an innocent young girl who was focused on just getting back home. Somehow she looked behind the curtain and found he wasn't nearly as powerful as his subjects took for granted.

Donald Trump is a showman and superficially effective in some circumstances, but he is not a nice person.  For some intelligent people including many of his supporters they don't care.  Many of them think he is on their side and that he is accomplishing important things.  In truth not being nice is indicative that there might be something behind the curtain.  Admittedly if an advocate for what I believe in was a showman who got things of value done I wouldn't care an awful lot if he or she was a nice person. 

His supporters proclaim that Trump has done some very important things that benefit lots of people.  They point to a booming stock market and low unemployment rates.  They should be looked at as the short term results of misleading policies and also ironically a continuation of many discarded policies.

He attributes the economic boom (while exaggerating its historic uniqueness) to tax cuts and deregulation.  Behind the superficial claims comes the real force behind them.  The biggest donors were demanding large tax cuts and deregulation.  Some Republicans claimed the tax cuts will pay for themselves and deregulation would just free up business energy.   For a clearer picture of who wanted the tax cuts and deregulation:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

The tax cuts do not pay for themselves and it is already evident that the government will have to borrow more money which in the end will raise interest rates and make it more difficult for the average person to borrow money.  Another course which is favored by many conservatives is to cut government expenses in a wide variety of areas including education, safety net programs, foreign aid, etc.  But not military which admittedly does provide jobs, but are they the ultimate jobs we want?

More seriously deregulation is portrayed as undoing unfair restrictions on honest business men.  The problem historically has been that some of the more successful businessmen have little hesitation to take advantage of innocent consumers.  This was very evident in the 2008 recession when money lenders were on one hand more generous, but also deceptive.  Many borrowers found themselves over their heads.  Banks and investment houses were also big donators and demanding looser regulations.  Eventually the con men will disrupt our economy.  Chances are the wealthiest will suffer the least.  Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/regulation-how-we-protect-ourselves.html

International relations is a relatively safe place to spout off.  Only it is not.  We now live in an increasingly inter-connected world.  What is the point of alienating nations that have historically been supportive?  When most of the world recognizes climate change as a major concern (more on that below) the United States federal government makes a very emphatic statement as it withdraws from the Paris Agreement.  Trade agreements that have benefits are ridiculed, but are tied to jobs right around the globe and have engendered peaceful relations.

The Iran Agreement was not designed to take care of every complaint against Iran, but was focused on the most serious concern to limit nuclear arms proliferation.  Several nations with different politics united to force compliance.  Yes everyone realized that Iran might not live up to its part, but the most comprehensive protections in all history were designed to protect international interests.  Like many countries Iran has conflicting factions and those who distrusted the American government have gained influence as a result.  America has created distrust.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/the-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

Immigration is perhaps the most flammable issue.  Immigrants are pictured by those in power as job stealers and cultural diminishers.  It hides the fact that the real job squeeze comes from automation and the desire of those in power to maximize their profits by seeking the lowest wages with the least regulations.  It overlooks the historical value of diversity and also the global refugee crisis created by global trends with which most of us are complicit.  Some more thoughts on the refugee problem http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/04/rescue.html

Climate change is increasingly being recognized as one of the most serious concerns for all living beings although others argue that the threat of a nuclear war is maybe more serious.  Again vested interests have found bribing politicians the best way to stifle any efforts to cramp their profits.  Some of the efforts to lessen the worst effects of climate change are tied to reducing pollution.  One area Trump felt was successful was the work of Scott Pruitt who eliminated dozens of restrictions on polluters and after his overwhelming corruption forced him out his successor has carried on.  Another example of putting the fox in charge of the hen house but in this case everyone's health is endangered.

To a Canadian such as myself, the fight over health care seems ridiculous.  Canadians live longer and pay less for their healthcare than Americans do.  Not unusual as most developed nations are very similar in comparisons.  Why aren't Americans asking their politicians about how they can boost the outcomes of a health care program and who benefits from the current status?

Who benefits the most from the Trump regime?  There are of course individuals who are smart enough or lucky enough to be in a good position, but as groups I would suggest two.  The 1% who now have a thicker cushion to enjoy a high standard of living.  Another group is the anti-American forces, most specifically Russia who want the breakup  of international alliances and increased polarization in western nations. 

Who suffers the most.  Pretty much the bottom 90% of the population somewhat proportionately as the most unfortunate people are concerned.  Minority groups who are the brunt of blame and some considered sinners by the evangelical base.

As part of the conservative agenda is a desire to rid themselves of big government restrictions.  They have convinced those who have been protected by a liberal large government  that their interests are not protected.  Conservatives are quick to extol the advantages of private enterprise, but overlook the contributions of government  for their own benefit.  See how the government has boosted business:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/the-entreprenurial-state.html

Voting is a right, but if it not used carefully can hurt those who make a poorly thought out decision.  Criticizing the Trump regime has the danger of overwhelming the victims who do not believe them anyway.  I hope no one has been overwhelmed by my list of misdeeds, but assure you it is an incomplete list.

SOCIAL CONSERVATISM IS RESISTENT TO PROGRESS

One political commentator used the term "binary" election to describe the choice Americans face in electing a president.  Some voters don't even realize there are more than two choices on the ballot.  However binary is an appropriate word because it is a winner takes all (in a narrow, but significant sense) system and for a variety of reasons it is far too expensive to mount a viable third party.

So in essence there are two choices, which some people pare down to:  liberals and conservatives. That is over simplified, but generally the candidates form packages that are most easily described that way.

In truth most people have a streak of conservatism in them because they are most comfortable with the status quo.  However the conservatives with money want to protect and expand their control while others who hope to reach the top of wealth want to protect their path.  This means that the smart money wants rules that in effect give them an edge.  In reality most Americans (indeed most people) are content to stay in their comfort zone, but do notice that they are being taken advantage of.  Examining the program set out by the moneyed conservatives would be rejected by the majority of voters.  Their solution has been to partner with what are labeled "social conservatives."

Social conservatism is a loose term which can be a bit slippery to define and many of us share some views but not others.  Many of us evolve our thinking regarding what is acceptable and what is good. We all discriminate in one way or another, but we come to view some discrimination as unfair and even counter productive.  Some of us appreciate that the world is changing and some new things and ideas need to be considered.  Some issues which might upset the status quo can no longer be ignored.

Racial discrimination has always been and to some extent always will be.  It is normal to think the group you belong to has characteristics that are superior to other groups.  Americans boast about how prosperous their country is due to their work ethic and "freedom," but they overlook that an important initial factor was slave labor which could only occur when Europeans were able to class black Africans as inferior and undeserving.  That stigma that made slavery possible is to some extent still with us.  In many ways the views on blacks are self-fulfilling in that if one is constantly confronted with obstacles sooner or later one gives up.  I grew up in a white society and I remember when my father drove me and my sister to Buffalo he told us not to stare.  Blacks to-day are more common and do not elicit idle curiosity.  A powerful perspective is  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html

Immigrants have always had a rough time.  At one time it was the Irish and the Italians, but to-day they and other Europeans are well assimilated.  In the United States, Mexicans have come to symbolize cheap labor and different customs.  From a globalized world immigrants come from all sorts of "weird" places and now a" troublesome" component is Muslim with seemingly a very different life style.  The hope for the world is that we assimilate together.  We are unconscious of the many gifts that have come from "others," but are gradually finding acceptance of new gifts such as tacos and fallafels.  These gifts and many others have enriched our lives.  My experience with refugees:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/the-syrian-refugee.html

Sexual behavior has always been a potentially volatile element.  Marriage was instituted as a way of controlling it and families are the base of society.  That some people didn't want to fit into the standard one man, one woman mold was something to be hidden, not only on pain of ridicule and ostracism, but sometimes as extreme as death.  I grew up snickering at the concept of homosexuals, but secretly feared them.  Then because of changing times I actually met and even socialized with some and was struck that they weren't all that different.  Now we hear or read that some people are born into a sex they feel very uncomfortable with and have the option to change.  New and very frightening to those brought up in a "normal" atmosphere.

Religious beliefs are the most defining for many people.  It not only is a set of core beliefs that help us deal with life, but bonds us to people with the same beliefs.  To me it is the height of arrogance to believe that we are 100% right and everyone else is wrong.  But should you find yourself in that trap (I do myself) it is neither fair nor practical to condemn everyone who subscribes to a different view.  Tolerance is a desirable religious trait as perhaps best personified in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Abortion is for many the core of social conservatism.  The thought of what an abortion actually is, is very repulsive to most of us.  Even if you have no religion it is hard to imagine anything more sacred or basic than life itself.  What is our life worth if someone can take away anyone else's?  I say that from the comfort of a male who will never have to directly face the problem of an unwanted pregnancy and of someone who went to Sunday School.  We all know that sex is a powerful drive and the result is sometimes an unwanted pregnancy.  If you don't have to face the consequences it is easy to pontificate about it.  Some women have killed themselves rather than deal with the consequences or more commonly suffered in other ways.

For those who feel abortion is the worst possible choice I am not too far from your view.  For that reason I favor sex education and contraception, but many social conservatives are against that as well.  Sex is seen as an evil thing that must be controlled and promiscuity cannot be forgiven.  On the other hand sex develops bonding between parents.  Sex is one of the key drivers of humans and can be a great joy and motivator for all civilization.  Other remedies include adoption and perhaps most important, acceptance.  For my views on sex education: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/sex-in-classroom.html

Many people cannot condone what they see as "murder" and I can respect that.  On the other hand we all need to realize that elected politicians deal with many other life and death issues.  Executions and the power to declare and manage war are pretty direct.  Health care is also a matter of life and death to all of us in one sense or another.  In fact a lot of regulations are aimed as curbing risk to life.  Euthanasia is also becoming an issue.  In all these cases voters have the power to impact other lives.  Hillary Clinton has said "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Another aspect of social conservatism has come to be gun rights.  The desire to protect yourself and loved ones cannot be denied.  On the other hand a truly open gun policy would likely lead to anarchism and a lot of violence.  Most people accept that there needs to be some limitations just as we have come to accept limitations on the use of automobiles.  Some feel that any restriction on their gun rights is a limitation on their freedom. They are right in this, but to be functional we all have limitations on our freedom.  This is another life and death issue.  For my views on gun control:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/01/the-american-gun-dilemma.html

The economic conservatives have learned that by offering assurances they understand social concerns they gain votes and power.  Admittedly there is a natural alliance among those who like the status quo.  On the other hand many people realize the conservative approach is a key factor in inequality.

When Lyndon Johnson signed a bill of rights he realized his party was going to suffer for decades.  It wasn't long before Richard Nixon started a Southern Strategy.  Ronald Reagan followed with a lot of "dog whistles" that signaled he understood southern sensitivities (as well as northern bigots).  Americans did elect a black president, but it must be recognized that a lot of citizens resent him and question his legitimacy.

Hillary Clinton was recently "caught" admitting that she is one person in private and another person in public.  This was presented as a shocking revelation, but in fact we are all guilty, more so if expecting to accomplish any goal.  The justification she gave was regarding a portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in the movie, "Lincoln" rings true.  Conservatives certainly have goals and have long ago realized the image they present to the public is not always how they think in private.

Iowa, the process begins

As a Canadian I have no say in the American Presidential campaign, but the whole world has a stake in the final result.  The final result is more than just who becomes president, and includes the makeup of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Together they will set the laws and even determine who interprets the law.  They can all have a huge impact on the rest of the world.  I don't pretend to understand all the details of the process, and I suspect few Americans do either.  As with anything similar, a lot of preparation has gone on for this contest and will continue with adjustments.

Iowa seems a strange place to begin the formal process.  It is more rural, less diverse and apparently has a higher percentage of evangelicals than most states.  All these factors colour the result, but more importantly help set the wheels in motion.  Farm subsidies are a bigger issue than elsewhere and candidates have to address this concern.  Interestingly the big Republican winner, Ted Cruz is against subsidies to the ethanol growers, but tempers it a bit by refusing subsidies to other energy providers to even the playing field.  Less diverse people and more evangelicals puts greater emphasis on the issue of abortion and same sex marriage.  Candidates often find themselves locked into positions that might not carry as much weight in subsequent elections.

Being the first chance to gain attention the Iowa caucuses can be critical to many politicians.  The outstanding example is Jimmy Carter who was basically an unknown former governor of Georgia.  He identified Iowa as critical to gain public awareness and build momentum.  Far ahead of the Iowa caucuses he devoted a great deal of time to understand what Iowans were concerned about and cultivated contacts.  He also was able to boast about his zero based accountng that was demonstrated early in his campaign.  Although he didn't win Iowa he got national attention and was able to build on it.  It hasn't always worked out that way for everyone as many have been able to overcome losing in Iowa (even badly) to win the final prize, but it is now seen as a necessary credibility step.

This all gives Iowa greater power than their small size would normally give.  Many citizens take the responsibility seriously and candidates are forced into  explaining themselves to large numbers of small groups.  They offer what many consider an archaic process that differs for Republicans and Democrats.  I don't totally understand it, but was struck by what I know about the Democrat caucus system.

Each candidate is given a space that others can go to register their support.  There is even a spot for the uncommitted.  After each candidate has a representative speak on their behalf the assembled voters get to make a choice.  Any group that has less than 15% overall is broken up and forced to go to another group.  Sometimes the uncommitted are able to dominate, but they also are split up if they fail to reach 15%.  Many of us in multi party systems end up voting strategically, but in reality we are guessing with skimpy information.  In Iowa it is pretty clear amongst the Democrats which candidate is dominating and which might benefit from some support.  After some jockeying a decision is made and I think in some instances it must be more satisfying than attempts to strategize votes in other jurisdictions.

With the results in, the dynamics are changing already.  Although the rest of the race to the White House has different rules it is normal for some losers to give up.  Behind the scenes some financial donators are making decisions as well.

There were a few surprises, but not totally out of line with predictions.  In many ways I am very unimpressed with the voters response, but then they probably don't think much of my reasoning.
Donald Trump to a great extent coasted on his tv reality show and some bombastic declarations.  He was defeated by a narrow minded focused, Ted Cruz who understood the importance of hard work and organizing.  As a Canadian I would like to interject that Trump's assertion that Cruz might be disqualified for his Canadian birth was very unfair.  That little bit of doubt probably encouraged some marginal Cruz supporters to look elsewhere.  I think originally the Constitutional requirement of natural American birth was to protect the new democracy against foreign born aristocrats. Nonetheless it is a stupid law that hurts everybody.  All voters deserve to get the best person available.  Also don't forget the Constitution left out women and slaves as voters.

The establishment was relieved to learn one of their favoured candidates, Marco Rubio finished third.  This will allow voters and financiers to consolidate their efforts and resources against the outsiders Trump and Cruz.  A year ago it was assumed by many that Jeb Bush would be able to represent establishment Republicans, but I think the Iowa results make that much more difficult.  Others will soon be weighing whether it is worth the effort.  Becoming president isn't the only motive as national attention can result in a political appointment, a tv contract a lobbying position or selection as the Vice President nominee.

The Republicans were able to tap into a well of fear and ignorance.  That is compounded by the size of the field meaning that each candidate tends to try to outdo their opponents in sensational claims.  It is true that the American economy is a big letdown for many voters and that international conflicts are scary, but they overlook who is responsible for that and who has been mopping up the mess much better than his predecessor.  In eight years a lot is forgotten, but the origins of much that is wrong in America was brought about by policies, decisions and people that associated with Republicans and which they wish to continue.  Obamacare, a big step in the right direction is denigrated (I think that is the right word) and too many people accept the Republican view.  A decision to go to war with Iraq was one of the most stupid and deceitful decisions ever with very long lasting consequences.  Giving rich bankers and investors less regulations resulted in a major disaster for which others paid the price.

There is more to the economy than just regulations or the lack thereof.  The global economy  works best for rich investors who can shift money and manufacturing facilities easily to co-operating jurisdictions for more profit.  We are also at a point where machines can produce more goods than people can.  For some investors they are able to take advantage of this and for the most part seem unconcerned about who they are displacing.  There have been small attempts to adjust, but they are resisted by those at the top of the food chain.

Over on the Democrat side it became obvious they have a two way race, casting aside Martin O'Malley, an intelligent individual but without a national profile  He never really had much of a chance to make himself and his ideas known on a national scale, but at least he made it to the debating platform.  Others dropped out and others decided not worth the effort.  Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden are out of the running, but may get a significant appointment if their party wins.

There is not as much difference between the two remaining Democrat candidates as there are between either one of them and the Republicans, but there is a difference.  Bernie Sanders is characterized as an idealist and it is unusual for an idealist to make it this far.  Usually they have to compromise more than Sanders has so far.  Like Trump he is also tapping into a great discontent in the American population, but I think he has identified the causes better than anyone.  He may not be able to implement his ideas, but likely would bring us closer to a fairer society.  Clinton positions herself as practical.  She knows that Congress will be difficult to work with and promises she will get results incrementally.

Perhaps as the fields narrow down the important issues will be discussed in a more reasonable manner.  Republicans reflexively deny climate change, a stance that still carries a lot of weight, but is slowly fading.  Obamacare needs to be improved not abolished.  Immigration (including refugees) needs to be reformed.   Inequality will inevitably get worse until there is either a violent revolution or a collapse of society.

Campaign finance over rides everything.  No prospective politician will get very far without large amounts of money.  They will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the money and perhaps even more critical, compromise.  One example is Marco Rubio getting money from a casino owner who is demanding favourable treatment for Israel which may not be in America's best interest.  Energy companies are huge donators who want to maintain their status quo.  Investors donate to give themselves favourable treatment.  It seems most of those willing to contribute to a campaign want something that is not in the best interest of the rest of us.

The media sees the whole process as an opportunity.  The news creates interest and they tend to treat it as a horse race or a platform for sensationalism.  Most importantly they can get a lot of advertising revenue.  They certainly can and do often distort things.  CNN highlighted a weak moment of Howard Dean that helped undo his campaign, but had little to do with what he offered the country.   If they would just highlight candidate distortions and falsifications they would be rendering a public service, but they tend to just skim over the issues.

Will the Americans end up with the best result under their system?   We may never know what dedicated servant who is knowledgeable and exercises good judgment under stress would have come forward if it had been easier.  We can get only those who muster the resources to put on a good show.

The idea of starting with Iowa is not all bad as it forces candidates to talk to more actual voters.  That gives hard workers a chance to create awareness.  Part of the problem is the length of the voting, starting with the primaries and also including the national campaign.  It is a huge country and it takes time to cover it all, but there is another dynamic that cuts that down.  Many states already give the appearance of giving their voting delegates to one party or the other which means both parties feel little need to cater to them instead putting their resources where the outcome (as determined by history and polls) is undecided.  There is a trade-off between the expensive time required to make a case and the scope of the voters concerns.  There is no perfect system, but it is due for a study.

MID TERM ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD

The choice is clear and the stakes are high.  Some powers are intent upon imposing obstacles between some American citizens and the ballot box.  But for some, voting is not worth the effort.  Fear and greed are the two most powerful weapons against rational thinking and that is another obstacle in the way of setting the American government on a better course..

Representing the interests of the 1% you have those who mock scientists, are dead set against health insurance coverage for the masses, .  You can argue that the other side don't do much to help the common man, but you would be overlooking they are handicapped.  It is also true that nobody gets elected without a lot of financial support that in fact ties their hands a bit.  Politics should not be a horse race, but rather a forum of ideas.

Barack Obama has his hands tied by Congress and his own obligations to those who finance him.  What is a voter to do?  Don't trust those who blame him for the problems.  Obama has offered solutions for the benefit of the common man and tried to surround himself with people who can help boost the country, but he is pretty well stymied.  Still the facts support he has done a good job and the attacks on him are mostly unworthy.

Affordable Health Care (socialized medicine if you prefer) has been an idea accepted by most of the developed world who have discovered that it is more cost effective than most of the alternatives.  Obama selected a plan that originally had been developed by Republicans and works within a market system.  It had been tried in Massachusetts with no major problems and many benefits ironically under a Republican governor who again ironically renounced  it while currying favour with Republican power brokers.  Since its partial implementation has proved itself capable of saving money as well as boosting health.  Republicans still rant against it, but their logic should not be accepted.

Foreign policy is always a delicate affair.  At one time a super power could impose its views on any dissenters.  Armament manufacturers do provide jobs and wealth and have pressured government leaders to use weapons to protect their interests.  The world is a complicated place with countless points of view and somehow we need to learn how to get along to solve global problems that can do us all in.  The Republicans took advantage of 9/11 to invade a country not connected to the event.  They thought they could force foreigners to their will, but found taking sides and deceiving people is not a good plan.  It is far better to take the time to understand the situation than to jump in.  Obama has been more cautious and long term in his thinking.

Immigration is another dicey problem.  Many businesses and individuals see it has a chance to get cheap labour.  Others feel their jobs threatened.    Still others distrust strangers with different cultural values.  The Republican rhetoric concentrates on sealing the border.  Their tough stance indicates that they think they can use this as a wedge issue where prejudice and fear make people irrational.  At the same time businesses like to have cheap labor and see immigrants as another way to minimize worker choice.  America has been made great by immigration and there is every reason to think they will actually benefit from future immigration.  There will have to be tough decisions, but they should not be based on prejudice and exploitation.  Obama seems to be more understanding.

Climate change is laughed at by Republicans who claim it has not been proved.  There has been an overwhelming conclusion by the global scientific community that this is the major problem in the world.  (I would just add aggravated by overpopulation).  Republicans have fossil fuel money and religious conservatives demanding the rejection of any plan to deal with the future disaster.  This alone is grounds for voting for an alternative to the Republicans

Inequality concerns are brushed off as envy.  Most Americans are unaware of just how much the 1% controls in their country.  Republicans claim the wealthy are job creators, but that overlooks outsourcing, union bashing and other practices.  The true job creators are consumers, but the bulk of Americans have less money and job security than in the past.

The Republicans are obstructionists.  What does that mean?  Instead of compromising and working together they vote against Democratic proposals on principle.  There may well be legitimate principles, but if they really want to serve their constituents they should be working to create laws that work.  There is a lot of money that could help fix the deficit and get Americans working, but the Republicans are far more interested in protecting their rich supporters.

The Presidential election stirs a lot of attention, however too many voters underestimate the importance of mid term elections.  The President certainly has a lot of power, but cannot accomplish what he promised without Congress.  At the moment the American Congress is very obstructive and ignoring the common man in favour of their rich donators.

Campaign financing has come to distort the discussion platform and if anything most Republicans would tilt it even further.  Corporations are not people, but are allowed to influence the outcome. At bottom campaign finance laws should be altered to limit the influence of money.

It is true that a lot is stacked against a single voter.  Those who have the most to gain by a Democratic victory seem to have the most hoops to jump through.  Those who are wishy washy will be bombarded with a lot of distortions.  Gerrymandering means single votes might have very little impact.  Even though the rules allow a party to dominate with fewer total votes the party with most votes does gain some moral leverage. Single votes do add up so make sure your vote is part of the equation.  You can be sure many others with different priorities will make it to the voting booth.

IMMIGRATION A THREAT OR AN OPPORTUNITY

Immigration is big news in the United States, but also in other "western" countries.  There are those of us who "belong" and there are those "others."  Some of the lesser noticed news is that immigration is decreasing in some quarters, but not enough to quell all of the very heated complaints.

The most obvious concern for many is a threat to their job and as jobs are being automated and outsourced there is a race for what is left.  Wages and perks are declining.  Unfortunately (or it could be fortunately) society is becoming so efficient at making things that the job situation is very likely to decline everywhere.  Immigrants aren't responsible so much as reacting to the fact that economic opportunities are shifting.  Inside Canada and other countries the unemployed are being told to move to where the jobs are.  Immigrants from foreign countries are in fact doing just that.

The positive side is that immigrants increase demands for all sorts of products and services that in turn offer opportunities for domestic jobs.  The job market started to boom when the "boomers" began demanding products and services and much of that demand has declined as the boomers age..  Immigrants also provide services that will be greatly needed as our population ages.  Some of them provide skills we lack and others provide investment capital that can be put to good use and others are willing to do "dirty" work that the rest of us shun.  At bottom we are most fearful that most immigrants are willing to work harder for less.

In some areas there will be competition for immigrants.  Some skills (or willingness to do dirty work) will be in short supply.  How can we make it more attractive for immigrants?  Money will be a major factor, but many immigrants are very concerned about their close relatives, education and cultural opportunities, community acceptance, legal protections. etc. 

Aside from jobs there is the whole idea that "they" are different and are replacing our culture that we hold dearly.  Most immigrants do want to fit in and sooner or later they mostly do.  Hockey is still the big deal for Canadians while Americans still get excited about football and baseball.  We still have our Hollywood movies and Thanksgiving turkey.  Many of us love our cottages and many of the rest of us (including many immigrants) envy them.  Most immigrants want to fit in and do adapt, but thank goodness they don't forget everything they learned back home.

Numbers and enthusiasm do make a difference and a  lot of us established nationals have come to appreciate it.  Going back before Europeans took over North America the real Native North Americans had a lot of quaint customs that we borrowed--maple syrup, snowshoes, canoes, corn on the cob and a philosophy that some of us revere such as conservation and respect for nature.  They have adapted somewhat to our notions of property, work for pay, bureaucracy, language, etc.

It is good that many immigrants take pride in many of their customs as some of us have found they add to our enjoyment of life.  Food is one example as more North Americans eat a variety of ethnic foods such as pizza, Pad Thai, quinoa, samosas, burritos, etc.  Music has been packaged in many different formats with immigrant contributions from all corners of the Globe.  Soccer and basketball owe much to immigrants as do other sports.  Cricket is providing enjoyment opportunities for native born as well as immigrants. This is only a small sampling of the countless contributions immigrants have added to our culture.

Us natives have a certain way of looking at things, but are now wanting to deal with the rest of the world and we don't always understand the global marketplace.  Immigrants bring a variety of perspectives that can not only shed light on our global opportunities, but also contribute to bettering our lives.

How many can we take in without hurting our economy?  There is a limit, but perhaps we should focus on how many we need to keep our economy going.  We need to have people buy products and services that might otherwise result in red ink.  We need people to carry on functions that are necessary, but  difficult to get natives to do.

How much can we absorb  without changing more than we want?  I think that will change with time as "we" won't be the same "we" we are today.  I believe what will be retained is more than just what the majority values and that will include a variety of options.  Not everyone will be as excited about hockey, but a few might be excited about soccer.  Everyone will be able to find music and art that they love. There is more to life than what you were born into and discovering some of the new things will be to your benefit.

Every change requires adjustments.  Immigration does for all parties, but all parties stand to benefit.  It is only a problem in some minds, it should be an opportunity for all.