Solving the Insoluble Problems of the Day

A problem solver

The world seems faced right now with several insoluble problems.

I do not believe in complaining about insoluble problems. So instead, I propose to offer solutions.

The first problem is fairly local: Canada is in alarming shape. While France, the UK, the US, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and the like seem to have insurgent movements poised to take power and perhaps pull them out of their current death spiral, Canada does not. The Liberal party remains in power, after a dozen years, and worse, remains strong in the polls. Pierre Poilievre is not that distinct an alternative, and is not getting traction in any case. Although he is a brilliant rhetorician,  he does not evoke in the electorate a feeling of confidence in his competence or his ability to turn things around. 

Who else is there on the radar who might be our Trump, LePen, or Farage? Maxime Bernier is the man who has claimed that mantle, and he has good credentials, but he lacks the necessary charisma. 

The other guy who comes to mind is Kevin O’Leary. Full of charisma, likeable, and a highly successful businessman. His problem is that he does not speak French, so he is a non-starter in Quebec.

Here’s a solution: form a joint leadership of the People’s Party, Bernier and O’Leary. Who, if elected, would be joint prime ministers. 

There is Canadian precedent for this. The Green Party has had joint leaders. Quebec solidaire has had joint leaders. Canada has historically had joint premiers in Macdonald-Cartier, Baldwin-LaFontaine, and other governments of the United Provinces period.

The second insoluble problem is population. The governments of the developed world have been caught between a rock and a hard place: population collapse will make government finances unsustainable. To prevent this, governments have been opening the doors to a flood of immigrants. But this mass immigration has instead actually further taxed government services, while disrupting social harmony. And after all, can you really save Italy by replacing all the Italians and the Italian culture? What have you saved?

But just take your busy fingers off the panic button. This crisis, I think, will solve itself, if we can convince governments to stop tinkering.

Shut the doors to more immigrants. Technology will in the near future increase healthy lifespan so that people will no longer need to retire at 60 or 65. AI and robotics can replace many human hands; less population will be needed to generate the same level of wealth. The robots will pay for our retirements.

The third insoluble problem is the war in Iran. Trump needed to go in; Iran could not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. But they have turned out to be immune to Trump’s tactics. He hoped to frighten them to a deal; but they are a suicide cult, and so will not surrender no matter how bad he makes their situation. Which is, of course, the very reason they could not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Destroying the world wouldn’t bother them.

Nor can Trump consider a land invasion. The Iranian landscape and its large population makes that too costly. 

The solution is to get weapons to the Iranian people themselves, to allow them to overthrow the regime. What is needed is a large-scale smuggling operation. 

There; problems solved.

O'Leary's Gambit

 

An obvious political opportunity has emerged for someone in Canada. A new and vital issue is suddenly on the table: should Canada join the US? 

All the current national party leaders, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Green, have adamantly rejected the idea.

This leaves an opening—indeed a need—for a Continentalist Party, prepared to negotiate the possibility.

Some will call this treason. But no more treasonous than Newfoundlanders campaigning for union with Canada prior to 1949; not to mention similar political campaigns in PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or British Columbia in their turn. Canada is founded on a celebration of unification. This is entirely within that tradition.

The standard political commentators will scoff—according to opinion polls, they will point out, joining the US has only 15% support in Canada.

Just as they pointed out that Poilievre could never win an election, because his views are too extreme. O’Toole and Scheer supposedly had the wise and winning approach: triangulate, and stay as close to the views of the current polls as possible, to win the centre.

Leaders—like Trump or Poilievre—lead. They do not follow the polls, they change opinions. All that is needed for such a party to prosper, I suspect, is a well-spoken, charismatic leader.

The more so since it looks as though the left is in collapse, in Canada and around the developed world. This leaves a vacancy for an opposition party founded on principles different from the current left-right divide, in Canada and around the world as well.

Indeed, the Trump unification drive seems to already be stirring echoes, if X is any indication, in Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, with locals suggesting this would be a good idea for their country too.

This sort of a shift in the political debate has happened before. At the beginning of the 20th century, socialism and “progressivism” emerged, and the old electoral divide between liberal and conservative was supplanted everywhere by a new division between conservative-liberal “free marketers” and Marxist “welfare state”/“New Deal” parties. In Quebec, for a generation or more, the divide was between sovereigntist and federalist. As we see in Scotland, Wales, or Puerto Rico.

This new divide in Canada would be similar to that in Quebec: should Canada stay sovereign, or merge with the States? 

All that is needed is a well-spoken, charismatic leader who sees the opportunity.

Kevin O’Leary is an entrepreneur. He is reputed to be skilled in spotting business opportunities; that is what he does on TV. He has always been interested in politics—he ran unsuccessfully for the Conservative leadership some years ago, failing by his estimation due to his lack of French. He is charismatic and telegenic.

I think he sees this opportunity, and may be on his way to forming such a new political party. He was shrewd enough to be first off the mark with a proposal for union, making himself the spokesman for the movement.

What O’Leary is promoting is not annexation, but an arrangement similar to the European Union. A shared passport, open borders, free movement of people and goods. 

But this looks like little more than a sales technique. The EU, after all, is based on the premise of an “ever closer union.” The goal is a United States or Europe; it is only a question of how quickly it can be completed.

Furthermore, the US is not going to agree to surrendering any of its sovereignty to some higher body. The US is historically hostile to such ideas; and there is no reason for them to treat Canada as an equal partner.

And furthermore, the US’s prime stated goal is a unified defense perimeter and tight external border. This will already require a closer union than the EU has yet achieved. 

No, no matter how it is framed, the governing authority for such a union would be the US government. All O’Leary is negotiating for is autonomous territory status instead of statehood.  A worse deal for Canadians, but perhaps more palatable. At least until he can acclimatize Canadians to the new view out the Overton window.