What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Wrong thread?

[Malthus]

Eh?

The American equivalent of "peace, order and good government" is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The two phrases neatly summarize the differences in outlook between the two - the US is more focused on individualism as the highest good; the Canadian, more focused on community. To the Americans. Canadians seem boring; to Canadians, the Americans seem dangerously anarchistic and lacking in principle.

Recent political events have made the differences starker than ever. Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

I've never really understood the idea that America is historically an individualist country. I don't really think the history follows this to be frank. I've long pointed out the stereotyped American paean to "rugged individualism" is really a product of fiction, created in real time, during the latter half of the 19th century and even then it arguably didn't become a dominant cultural narrative until probably the mid-20th century. The history of the colonization of North America, of thirteen of those colonies later engaging in an uprising against the colonial power and then establishing a new country is one of collective action and collectivist behaviors from almost start to finish. The colonists that created the early Puritan colonies in the Northeast lived in very planned and deliberate collectivist societies. The Jamestown Colonists had no rugged individualists among them--considering its early troubles with unfriendly natives no white man or white family was living long if they had established 19th century style solitary and remote homesteads.

Even into the 19th century in certain key aspects American society was far more collectivist and social than it is today. For example many States had a period of a few weeks every single year where adult males were pressed into government service. Sometimes for militia duties, but more often they were just required to perform various public works tasks around the region that had lay undone for a long time. Abe Lincoln had some recollections about his time doing this sort of mandatory state work in his young adulthood in Illinois. Many, many American communities were centered around the community church, and Christian churches have almost never been very individualistic in their operations or teachings, and 19th century American churches don't really buck that trend.

America was largely built by people who cared a lot about living in stable and vibrant local communities, it was not built by rugged frontiersmen. Rugged frontiersmen largely lived on the margins of society, and many were also only very deliberately living as rugged frontiersman due to some potential quick profit possibilities. Lots of the more famous rugged frontiersmen as they aged into middle age married, established homesteads, and usually became very involved in the local politics of their new communities. The two most famous frontiersman in early American history were Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. One the son of a tavern keeper the other grew up in farming, both married and owned farms very early in life. Both largely farmed for much of their business lives, both were involved in politics for much of their lives. Their stints as frontiersmen tended to be brief and usually were undertaken to supplement their regular settled incomes and/or in the case of Davy Crockett were done in short stints with the militia in the 1812 War-inspired conflicts with local native tribes and Crockett's later involvement in Texas affairs. Even in the case of his move to Texas Crockett spent most of his time working land, and organizing Anglo settlers into political and military bands, this is an intrinsically un-individualist set of actions to say the least.

My take is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just inherited language from British thinkers like Locke, and not particularly intended to establish individualism as t he cornerstone of American life. Especially since the Founding Fathers were mostly not very individualist themselves, either in their policies or actions. Although Jefferson did often idealize the concept of the "yeoman farmer and his nuclear family" as being the building block of a correct society. But Jefferson's voice was one in a big group, and Jefferson himself was often someone who was kind of a personal loner to a degree, he enjoyed many friendships over lengthy, lifelong written correspondences but was always reportedly at ill ease in social gatherings when engage in direct interpersonal interactions. So not surprisingly the founding father that spent a huge portion of his life hanging out with only himself and some slaves for company was the one most likely to most deemphasize community.

This may be true of the founding fathers, but what is of importance is how these issues are interpreted in the USA of today, and how that phrase has come to be interpreted - and there is no question whatsoever that the USA of today puts far more emphasis on individualism of a certain sort than other Western nations in many key areas - to give but one example, in the aspect of paying for healthcare.   

[Malthus]

Eh?

Trump would not be tolerated in Canada, for example.

Why not? Explain please.

Too corrosive of parliamentary institutions and traditions, which are deeply ingrained and taken seriously by too many people.

[Malthus]

Rob Ford was mayor of your largest city. Canada could absolutely elect a Trump

I think you completely misunderstand why a Trump would not be acceptable here.

It isn't because he's a know-nothing, populist demagogue. Both nations have had that type before.

It is because he openly disrespects and trashes your political institutions, undermining your democracy. That Rob Ford never did (and indeed, as mayor of a city, he lacked the power to do so).

Ford was a drug addict and an clownish embarrassment, but he was not a Trump. 

[Malthus]

The unwillingness to admit they're culturally American. 

Eddie Teach had it right after the question was asked.

The RoC is just America lite.

Nonsense, though I can see why that view would be popular in your province.

[Grey Fox]

The differences are subtle enough to be almost meaningless.

Our federal government had to built an entire system to finance a pop culture star system & yet all the more popular TV shows & movies are American production being simulcasted.

[Malthus]

The differences are subtle enough to be almost meaningless.

Our federal government had to built an entire system to finance a pop culture star system & yet all the more popular TV shows & movies are American production being simulcasted.

I disagree, and I point to the subject of this thread as my reason.

The difference is far more profound than merely what sorts of TV shows people watch.

[Razgovory]

We thought that Trump was too corrosive to be elected as well...

[Grey Fox]

The differences are subtle enough to be almost meaningless.

Our federal government had to built an entire system to finance a pop culture star system & yet all the more popular TV shows & movies are American production being simulcasted.

I disagree, and I point to the subject of this thread as my reason.

The difference is far more profound than merely what sorts of TV shows people watch.

I disagree that Trump is impossible in Canada. Ontario has Doug Ford.

[Malthus]

I disagree that Trump is impossible in Canada. Ontario has Doug Ford.

We've had populists before.

Doug Ford is an ass, and I hate all of his policies, but he's not like Trump.

What makes Trump different is not that he's an ass, or that his policies are shit. Both nations have had politicians who were asses and with shitty policies before. It is that he's the culmination of years of crumbling of political norms in a deeply divided nation. He lies openly, disrespects his nation's political norms openly, and instead of being turfed from office - his faction approves of everything he does, making him effectively impossible to get rid of.

That same level of division simply doesn't exist in Ontario or Canada (as you well know, the important divisions here are regional, not political). Ford was elected for the very traditional Canadian reason: to throw out the Liberals, who had displayed an unacceptable level of incompetence and corruption. Ford himself was literally a last-minute leadership replacement, as the original Conservative leader was turfed amid sexual allegations. There is no guarantee he won't be turfed in turn next election (and in fact, it is likely).

[The Minsky Moment]

This may be true of the founding fathers, but what is of importance is how these issues are interpreted in the USA of today, and how that phrase has come to be interpreted - and there is no question whatsoever that the USA of today puts far more emphasis on individualism of a certain sort than other Western nations in many key areas - to give but one example, in the aspect of paying for healthcare.

Americans put emphasis on the shibboleths of individualism - not on the actual rugged individualism of our imagined forbears or even the free market individualism of the ideological libertarians, but on the image of individualism as seen as TV.  It is an individualism expressed not by taking courageous stands on principle or by demands for free trade and balanced budgets or by living rough in the wild. As an example, few people in the old West carried guns; even in the wild cow towns one of the first moves a new sheriff would make would be a local "no carry" ordinance.  Present day Americans carry guns not to intimidate road agents and bandits on the wild frontier, but as a ideological fashion statement, conveniently on sale in the local Wal-mart. The problem in America now is not an excess of individualism, but an increasing conformity based on adherence to a political tribe.  Pollsters know that that a vast range voters strongly support programs to make health care more affordable and available but they hate the programs from the other side.  ACA gets decent polling support even from Republicans who deplore Obamacare, oblivious to the fact that they are one and the same program. 

America is in the decadent imperial phase of its existence, with Trump as our feckless Caligula. Republicans and Democrats still at least nominally have political programs but increasingly resemble the blues and greens of Byzantium, "parties" that stand for nothing at all other than rooting for their team and opposing the other team.  The Republicans have gone further down this path than the Democrats, but if Trump wins again, the Democrats may degenerate themselves in response.

[Malthus]

This may be true of the founding fathers, but what is of importance is how these issues are interpreted in the USA of today, and how that phrase has come to be interpreted - and there is no question whatsoever that the USA of today puts far more emphasis on individualism of a certain sort than other Western nations in many key areas - to give but one example, in the aspect of paying for healthcare.

Americans put emphasis on the shibboleths of individualism - not on the actual rugged individualism of our imagined forbears or even the free market individualism of the ideological libertarians, but on the image of individualism as seen as TV.  It is an individualism expressed not by taking courageous stands on principle or by demands for free trade and balanced budgets or by living rough in the wild. As an example, few people in the old West carried guns; even in the wild cow towns one of the first moves a new sheriff would make would be a local "no carry" ordinance.  Present day Americans carry guns not to intimidate road agents and bandits on the wild frontier, but as a ideological fashion statement, conveniently on sale in the local Wal-mart. The problem in America now is not an excess of individualism, but an increasing conformity based on adherence to a political tribe.  Pollsters know that that a vast range voters strongly support programs to make health care more affordable and available but they hate the programs from the other side.  ACA gets decent polling support even from Republicans who deplore Obamacare, oblivious to the fact that they are one and the same program. 

America is in the decadent imperial phase of its existence, with Trump as our feckless Caligula. Republicans and Democrats still at least nominally have political programs but increasingly resemble the blues and greens of Byzantium, "parties" that stand for nothing at all other than rooting for their team and opposing the other team.  The Republicans have gone further down this path than the Democrats, but if Trump wins again, the Democrats may degenerate themselves in response.

This is the same point I made in the post immediately above yours, and naturally I agree with it.

[crazy canuck]

The differences are subtle enough to be almost meaningless.

Our federal government had to built an entire system to finance a pop culture star system & yet all the more popular TV shows & movies are American production being simulcasted.

I disagree, and I point to the subject of this thread as my reason.

The difference is far more profound than merely what sorts of TV shows people watch.

I disagree that Trump is impossible in Canada. Ontario has Doug Ford.

We had a good long discussion circa 2016 about why Trump could not exist in the Canadian Parliamentary system.  It think the consensus we reached then that he could not is even more accurate now.  But to summarize - we don't elect a Prime Minister directly.  We elect MPs.  The MPs of the governing party do not have to wait for a set separate election cycle to become PM.  If they can replace a sitting PM they become PM with no election.  Sure a party leader has a lot of power, but that power is dependent on keeping the sitting MPs happy - just ask former PM May.  It would be very hard for a leader of a party to attack their own establishment party members the way Trump has done and stay in power.   

[Eddie Teach]

That is a political distinction, not a cultural one.

[Grey Fox]

Then why are the Ontario MPs still stuck with Doug Ford?