Remember what you stand for

 It is my experience that if you wish to live a life of meaning that you also have beliefs that are well thought out, clear, non-intentionally hurtful and are based as best as possible on sound reasoning and logic. Now I can’t say that you should divorce emotion from your beliefs, as we are human after all, but this emotion should not override the judgement that is formed along rational lines. 

In the day-to-day chaos of life, we often sideline our conscious realization of these beliefs, even if we act sub-consciously with the same ideals in mind. This promotes somewhat of a sleepwalking approach to life that we should eschew. 

To escape such a pathology (and on one level it is such a phenomenon) I would suggest a daily cataloguing and listing of both one’s primary and secondary beliefs. This does not have to span volumes, but should be both succinct and encompassing in such a manner that it brings to mind the core of what we are as agents of free will (one of my key beliefs). I have followed such a course of action for sometime now and find it to be both refreshing and re-affirming of my role as an active player in life.

Reflections XVI - MIxed Passage of Thought

Lies survive as they provide comfort for people.

The easiest pathway for a civilization to take is regression for it requires so little effort.

One should learn from one’s successes just as much our failures for many a success was delivered on the back of a fortuitous turn of events that may never repeat themselves.

No society will ever advance if its primary objective is the destruction of another as opposed to the growth of itself. This is the Palestinian tragedy.

The problem with politics is that as much as one tries to ignore it, you are immediately stung by the reality that it is etched into all aspects of the life struggle.

 

My thoughts on Christmas

As a Jew I have to admit I like Christmas. I don't celebrate it but the sentiment, the holiday spirit and culture of giving that it engenders in a modern western society is refreshing. While I take issue with some of the gross commercialization, I can also see from an economic perspective why this is somewhat justified.

Many people wish me 'Merry Christmas' and I have no issue with this. Nothing. I don't correct them because I am Jewish and I certainly am not offended by their obvious assumption that I too celebrate the holiday. It is understandable. Christianity has been an important driver in our civilization.

All too often people I know are incensed by such remarks but in my opinion there is not much to fuss over. If you are secure in what you yourself believe and have principles and standards that you adhere to, what difference does a Merry Christmas make?

From the Archives IV - Samuel Huntington and the Trump Presidency

 I wrote this in 2017. 

There is a certain urgency about the Trump Presidency that has forced many a denizen of the West to question the direction that the civilization has been moving. As a classical liberal I have entertained these thoughts for some time.

While I celebrated the collapse of Soviet style Marxist-Leninism in the early 1990s I was not convinced that the finality of the great struggle between the powers as envisioned in Francis Fukuyama’s work The End of History and the Last Man (1992), was about to dawn . Samuel Huntington’s  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1993) made more of an impression then and I believe that it looms even larger now.

Now Huntington himself was not a Republican.  During the Carter Administration he served in a coordinating capacity at the National Security Council and for more than half a century he played an integral role on the Harvard Faculty where he headed the Center for International Affairs. At one time he was a speech writer for Adlai Stevenson.

 His understanding of foreign affairs has almost a prophetic feel to it. Huntington argued that the pivotal clash defining the near future would be a series of confrontations between specific civilizations. These civilizations share very powerful cultural values, historical connections and in group similarities that set them apart from each other thereby transcending both economics and political constraints (and in many cases superficialities).

Huntington delineated several civilizations that he aptly named the West, Orthodoxy, Buddhist, Confucian, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Muslim and Hindu. He also identified some cleft countries that were split between various civilizations such as Nigeria and Sri Lanka, as well as ‘standalones’ like Japan.  Most civilizations gravitate toward a nexus of power - China in the case of Confucian, Russia with respect to Orthodoxy and India in the Hindu context.

In defining the West Huntington grouped together the United States, Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia and Oceania. While most of the nation states draw somewhat from a Christian (Catholic-Protestant) moral core they have incorporated within their  framework a universalism (certainly evident in the elite) that at its root sees a world that would be all the better if others adopted enlightenment driven western values.

Standing in opposition to the West is the Muslim world of the Middle East, Northern/Western Africa, Albania, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Maldives, Comoros, Brunei and Malaysia (as defined by Huntington). Many of these states are gripped by an Islamic resurgence that is hostile to Western Civilization and sees itself as a viable alternative worldview.

Strife and conflict would be inevitable and indeed in the post 911 world Huntington’s view carries some weight. However this is not the only fault line as we have seen with Russia and China reinvigorating themselves globally and India likely to follow suit making the Hindu claim at least on an economic level. In a further analysis Huntington even identified a civilization clash point in the United States with the inflow of Latin American immigrants into the nation (his solution a slow down followed by assimilation).

Huntington was invariably challenged on his model. Both the far left and free trade liberals criticized him for downgrading the role of economics (for different reasons of course) and playing to the vestiges of a worldview that had been swept aside by the ideological struggle of the Cold War. Others accused him of minimizing the nationalist (and religious) splits within the civilizations that he outlined. His view certainly stood in contrast to Fukuyama’s belief in a triumphant Western liberalism, let alone Karl Marx’s stance of a Hegelian march towards Communism. Huntington though was resolute in defending his paradigm and constantly warned optimists about the folly of believing that the path of history was fixed along their specific ‘utopic’ trajectory.

Reflecting on Huntington I see him in a slightly different light that makes him ever more relevant today. He articulated the reality that Particularlism would not be discarded and indeed would live to define a future that was already in the making (at the time of his writing the Balkan conflict was in full swing). International universalism could not celebrate and would have to put the champagne on hold for a while. From a Western perspective this would come to haunt our civilization as it had the most to lose from a resetting of a world order.  Demographic imbalance would speed up this transition.

Civilization Theory to some extent is what drives Trumpism. It is a reinvention of the defense of Western Civilization (albeit more American focused) against the other. It is a reaction to the failed Internationalism of the Bush presidencies, the Clinton Administration and its obvious fall from grace under Obama. What drives Trumpism is a need to reverse decline.  On one level it represents the Huntington view reasserting itself against the consensus of the Fukuyama outlook. All the key tropes of Trump – The Wall, Trade Protection, Non-Intervention, ‘Make America Great’ are consistent with such a philosophy that has identified the threat and is acting with deliberate intent. Protecting the civilization is key.

Brexit and other Anti-EU sentiments sweeping across the European continent are a further illustration of the Civilization impulse rejecting the perceived false messiah of Internationalism. It carries with it a defense of culture that sees survival in a return to republic and away from the promises of an amorphous empire centered on platitudes.

In a sense it has replaced once ossified left versus right divide with a dichotomy of Civilization opposing Internationalism that seems to cut across class lines and will in all likelihood emerge in the forefront of policy across the West. The change may appear to have been sudden but the potential was always there. What was needed was time and the right combination of events to catalyze the realignment. It appears to have already happened.

Reflections XV - On Rome

 A point that stands out when looking at the Roman Emperors is that Tiberius, Domitian and Maxentius were a lot better than their awful representations in history. While none were superstars each was radically impacted by negative propaganda. Caligula on the other hand lived up to his vile image.

Most of Rome’s military failures were reminders that it needed to accept its boundaries. Neither the Goths in the North (and East) and the Persians in Asia had any attention of acquiescing to Roman suzerainty. Since they were not a cavalry power (unlike the Mongols) or a sea empire (like the British) their boundaries had natural limitations which deterred expansion.

The history of Rome after the fall of Caesar is an ongoing saga of the debasement of the concept of citizenship. Citizenship is what held the Republic together. It withered to oblivion during the Empire until it had lost all meaning

From the Archives III - Canadian Federal Election 2015

 Stephen Harper would go on to lose the election. An event that ushered in the disasterous Justin Trudeau tenure

I wrote the following at the time: 

When push comes to shove I have found that most opponents of Stephen Harper (at least those at the center of the Canadian political spectrum) can rarely put their finger on the specifics of his policies that they don't agree with. Most (and I have spoken to many) simply tell me that they believe its time for a change and that there is 'something' about the man that they don't like.

Fair enough. One is not obliged to like everyone (I know that there are several individuals who initiate a gag reflex in me) but change often carries with it a double-edged sword.Change can be negative and one should be careful for what one wishes as there is always the risk of getting it.

Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, Canadians are still well respected throughout the world. The country boasts a strong education system, solid healthcare (although not perfect), a high level of economic freedom and is still regarded in survey after survey as one of the best places in the world to live. Everyday I thank my good fortune for having immigrated to this country.

In addition the recent budget showed a worthwhile surplus and while the Canadian dollar is relativity low compared to the greenback I don’t believe that Harper and co. have much control of this - just as Jean Chretien and the Liberals were not to blame for the low loonie during the late 90s. Such a value is a consequence of a global free currency market. On the flip side at least it encourages export of Canadian produced goods and resources.

Now it is true that all is not perfect but then again when has it ever been? The Pierre Trudeau years were rocked by economic mismanagement, regional fighting and a constitutional crisis that almost brought the country to its knees. The same (although somewhat to a lesser extent) personified the era of the pseudo-Conservative Brian Mulroney.

Jean Chretien’s tenure in office saw us waiting anxiously into the wee hours of the night, wondering if we would wake up in a united Canada after the closeness of the Quebec referendum (Thank G-d for the island vote). Many are quick to forget this, just as they overlook the sponsorship scandal, the helicopter boondoggle, the Suharto debacle, the kick backs to Shawinigan and other all too frequent low points that coloured the Liberal years.

Stephen Harper is not some kind of reactionary. His economic policies are no different on a grand scale from either Mulcair or Trudeau Jnr. and he is essentially a Neo-Keynesian in outlook (albeit with a smattering of Freddy Hayek thrown in for good measure). In short he is not a Canadian supply-sider and while he has used economic incentive (such as tax refunds) to stimulate growth he is certainly falls far from the mark in being a Milton Friedman caricature . In fact on many an economic issue he is not all to different from....dare I say it.… Hillary Clinton.

One could of course argue that Harper is a bit aloof and he certainly is not in any danger of winning a personality contest but why should that be the guideline for a PM? The country needs leadership and commitment to principles – not Canadian Idol points. Looking good in boxer shorts is not a requirement. Nor is the politics of class warfare that seem great in speech but are very divisive in practice and all too often define Liberal politics (at least on the surface).

Yes Harper runs a tight caucus but so did Jean Chretien. I will never forget how John Nunziata was shepherded out of the Grits for having the temerity to question Chretien’s about-face on the GST which he had originally opposed during the Mulroney years. Sheila Copps also stepped on some toes over the same issue.

Unfortunately this is how politics works in Canada especially when one has a merging of the executive and the legislative arms in the construct of a majority government. The alternative can be worse. Mulroney ran more of a loose caucus and paid the price in seeing his party splinter along several fault lines (I suspect the same would happen under Mulcair in the unlikelihood of the NDP taking power, as his support comes from several disparate factions)

Now this is not to say that I am completely taken by Harper. I for one would have liked to have seen more positive changes to the nature of our Senate (an elected body is necessary) and greater tax reduction initiatives under his tenure (not just the smoke and mirrors that all three parties advocate). I would have also opted to see a sell off of the CBC and less big government spending overall. Welfare reform, especially designed to curb the abusers is most welcome, but was sadly pushed to the sidelines.

Nevetheless the PM did great work with the income splitting initiative and this he should be commended. He also stood firm in not pandering to the demands of social conservatives and thereby avoided giving life to the now failed ‘Hidden Agenda’ argument that the Left shrieked about before Harper took office.

However what I most like about the PM is that he actually believes in Canadian exceptionality. He understands that Canada is a society that has been built on the fundamentals of western liberal thought and has certain non-negotiable hallmarks that define it as a consequence of its history. He does not need to compromise to placate some moral relativism. He realizes, that even though our nation is driven by an expanding immigration base, we will only survive as a people if we have key principles that rise and take precedence over all else. This is not to say that we don’t celebrate our distinct cultural differences, but that when they clash with values that define the essence of what Canada is we must go with the standards that have made our great nation the entity that it is. I therefore applaud him for making this front and center of his policy in office and wish him well on October 19th.

In Praise of Me Time

One of the discoveries of growing older is the realization that time itself is extremely valuable. When one was younger, time seemed as plentiful as the atmosphere. It was there it was available and it seemed to last forever.

Then the milestone of forty kicked in and something triggered inside me. There are only twenty-four hours in a day and one needs to use them wisely.
Now in my case I know exactly the cause of this trigger. Essentially it was the onset of fatherhood that had ambushed me at thirty-seven and was redefining my persona with each passing moment. However it was only at forty that this realization became intellectually apparent.

Maybe I had blocked it out for a while but now in a brief respite I could contemplate what it truly was. It wasn’t time that was the problem but a deficiency of ‘me-time’ the opportunity to retreat and ‘be alone’ to charge one’s battery and escape even for a while the realities of adulthood.
Its not that this ‘me-time’ is better than any other time for most of my greatest moments are spent with my family but for somebody who is naturally introverted such ‘me-time’ is critical to my functioning. Supply it at the right amount and I function optimally on all fronts. Take it away and I cease to be the best version of Gavin that I can be.

So in a sense I place great value on ‘me-time’. It is currency in my life whose value seems to appreciate with age.
I am sure others feel the same way. It’s a healthy selfishness but one that when all said and done is extremely necessary.