In Conversation: Sanders and the Democratic Party

You can't seem to go more than a few days without being reminded that this is the most interesting American primary season in recent memory. Despite not having been alive at the time, I feel that the last primary of this calibre was 1968 after Johnson decided not to pursue a second term. The theatrics of the contests are a true spectacle, for better or for worse, but one gets the feeling that never before has so much been on the line. To get a better sense of what exactly is happening, I decided to talk to one of my friends, Andrew, a southerner and a communist.

Andrew is a committed communist, identifying as a Marxist-Leninist. He has never voted for the Republicans, nor the Democrats. His stances against imperialism and private property shape his perceptions on many key American policies. In general he tends to support the Party of Socialism and Liberation. I asked him about what voting means to him.

"True workers' power can never be won through the ballot box" he told me. He explains that his values are based on idealism, conceding that you have to "go where the masses are" quoting Lenin. For Andrew, this kind of pragmatism is necessary in politics, but he levels an accusation at Sanders, calling him a sell-out.

I enquired as to what, then, would force a committed PSL supporter to vote for a mainstream candidate. Was it that Sanders is a progressive choice, or was it to do with the threat from the Republican side.

Andrew pointed out that one of Sanders true victories is that he has taken away the power of the word "socialism" as a scary word. To have made it socially acceptable to be a socialist in the United States is an accomplishment, but we talked about what exactly constitutes his brand of socialism.

"It doesn't go far enough". He comments on Sanders' support for imperialist endeavours, including troops in the middle east, is something he staunchy opposes. Morever, Sanders' brand of socialism is misleading as it has little to do with public ownership beyond the expansion of universal health care. Progressive taxation, Andrew points out, is not socialism.

It was, then, the idea that the Republican front-runner could do so much damage that motivates Andrew to vote Democrat. So much so, in fact, that he would vote for Clinton in November. We didn't talk much about Clinton, to be fair. It is fair to say that for a communist like Andrew and a democratic socialist like me that Clinton (a corporate candidate with years of experience waging war in the Middle East) is an unsavoury choice. But there is merely too much on the line.

I have thought a lot about how terrible a president Trump would be merely in terms of being the face of Washington. However, Andrew pointed out to me that one of the most serious problems would be that nothing would get done with Trump in the White House. During Obama's administration Congress was obstructionist because public opinion allowed it. Andrew sees that there is simply no way that Trump would't be even more polarising in that role.

Super Tuesday: The Many Mornings After

The results from last night are in and both Clinton and Trump have solidified their leads in their respective races. While, at this point, it looks as though the two frontrunners may have practically finished the job, there is a long road ahead for better or for worse.

I have spent a decent amount of time here talking about Trump in the past few months, so I'll keep my comments on this matter short. The situation is dire for another candidate, at this point either Rubio or Cruz, to run as the Trump alternative. Both campaigns are still in full motion, however, after Super Tuesday. Trump, who is now seen as out of control by many within the Republican establishment, will continue to polarise voters. Those who have seen him as honest and forthright will continue to valorise him; others who can see the degree to which his campaign is based on hate and fear will continue to try to take him down. The window on this is perilously short since the rules for the Republican primary are set to produce a winner relatively quickly (to avoid a repeat of the Romney situation of 2012).

What is perhaps more interesting is the Democratic race (great interactive results here). Last night of the eleven states in question, Clinton won seven. The divide is rather stark, with southern states overwhelmingly going Clinton's way (some with 50 point margins). Many have started sounding the alarm that it is now over for Sanders, but in my opinion it is still far too early.

For one, Clinton had taken a similar lead in 2008 before Obama was able to rally to the finish, which by the way was in June. Moreover, Sanders won by margins no narrower than 18 points in the four states he carried. The thread from the results is that, by and large, Sanders is not faring well in more diverse states. This is interesting given Clinton's backing and background.

For one, southern liberals, and in particular black Democrats, are supporting Clinton. This despite her race baiting Obama (relatively unsuccessfully) in 2008. She has yet to address questions of race that have been (on numerous occasions) asked of her. Avoiding the issue has led to success for her. As well, in January, Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton stating that she was the best bet for LGBTQ Americans. Susan Sarandon, speaking at a Sanders event, noted that “It’s one thing to be for gay rights and gay marriage once everybody else is for it,” pointing out that she had only recently become an ally. Lastly, Clinton is most certainly an establishment candidate for the corporate funding she has received. She has taken very weak positions on economic regulation and has been working hard to keep her son-in-law, a wealthy investment banker, out of the picture.

With new contests virtually every week for the next few months, there is still time for the winds of change. My only remaining insight is that it's only going to get uglier.

Monolithic Memory

This weekend the news broke that justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Immediately there were tributes to him and his legacy. I've written about the sentiment that we should not speak ill of the dead before (with the passing of Margaret Thatcher). In the time since, I've paid more attention to the media circles following the death of a public figure. I've noted that there seems to be a tendency to memorialise a celebrated person as either terrible or wonderful with a rather limited capacity to portray the complex nature of their legacy.

I had previously argued that media are wont to not speak ill of the venerable dead, despite their "divisive" status before death. Given the recent death of Scalia, it's interesting that these two figures -who are such clear representations of partisanship - receive such a uniform treatment posthumously.

Yesterday was Presidents' Day and there were enough memorials of Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson to give me pause. Why is it that individuals who have such patchwork legacies, or at the very extreme have committed heinous acts, can be remembered so positively when they pass away?

With respect to Scalia, he made three impacts that lacked ethics. Despite the fact that he was clearly a brilliant man, he was also instrumental in adversely affecting the lives of millions of Americans. Unlike a private citizen whose opinion is not going to widely impact those around him, Scalia's value system had direct affects on society at large.

Firstly, under his watch the Supreme Court made significant changes to the Voting Rights Act which have allowed for voter suppression. As far as the integrity of a democratic society goes, this is a significant problem. Jon Oliver has an excellent piece on this if you're interested in learning more about the finer points. Consider as well that he was behind the implementation of Citizens United, an initiative the removes transparency from political donations.

Secondly, it was clear that Scalia had a terrible record on civil rights. He was very much opposed to affirmative action, basing his argument on the notion that the constitution should provide for equal treatment. He believed strongly in society's interference in women's reproductive choices. He was very critical of last year's landmark Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Thirdly, Scalia helped create personhood laws which provide massive economic and legal protection for corporations in the United States. With the idea that there are so many similarities between a person and a business, Scalia argued that corporations are "indistinguishable from the individual who owns them". Corporations need to have certain rights, but the balance of protections awarded to large multinationals at present is very much thanks to Scalia. In the 1980s he played a role in legal precedents that paved the way to corporate personhood.

If I may, I'd like to mention that failing to air the negative elements of public figure's legacy when they pass away is not insensitive. It is disingenuous. This reminds me of when, after the shooting at Sandy Hook, there was a push to refrain from talking about gun control because it was seen as an inappropriate time to have the discussion. It couldn't be a better time. If we don't talk frankly about Scalia now, when will we?

Chronicles of Sarnia - Pt. 3

Today I woke up and stayed in Kitchener. I didn't drive back to Sarnia in the darkness to start another week. While it will take some getting used to, beyond the unemployment, it's a bittersweet situation.

I've been waiting for what seems like forever to be back home, and it is now here. Along with all that anticipation is the heaviness of the numerous goodbyes of the past few days. Sarnia, more than likely any other place I've lived, has become a significant part of me. I don't think I could have ever predicted it, to be honest.

Amidst the feelings of excitement to leave, I found myself hoping that my last week in Sarnia would last longer. I wanted to relish my favourite places, walking the ice-covered beaches, getting a drink at Sideways, or playing Ingress in the quaint downtown.

Being in Sarnia again, under circumstances rather different from 2014, taught me a great deal about myself. This time I was alone a lot more that I've been in my life, much to my chagrin and delight. I made the best of the situation and I feel a certain degree of pride for having stuck through with one of the more difficult tasks of my life. All the while, I made an intelligent career move that I truly hope will pay off. I've gained perspective, and that's more than I can ever ask for, I suppose.

Today I am staring at a new page. However, I am not rudderless; I am merely entering new coordinates and looking therefore at a different horizon. I'm looking forward to the next adventure.

Chronicles of Sarnia Pt. 1 and Chronicles of Sarnia Pt. 2

Nationalism and Public Memory

A private member's bill has been introduced in the Canadian Parliament regarding the lyrics to the national anthem. A longtime co-op supporter and hero of mine, Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Bélanger, wants to change the words ''in all thy sons command'' to ''in all of us command''. Bélanger's initiative to make our national anthem gender neutral is well-intentioned. However, it should have us consider all the lyrics in general, if not the role that the national anthem should play in celebrating our country.

We are seldom are in contact with the national anthem, hearing it at the start of a hockey game, special event, or Canada day. As a teacher, however, I hear O Canada every single day at work. The English lyrics, which were added to Calixa Lavallée's instrumental music in 1906, invoke plenty of other references, if we were truly interested in changing the song, that are worth an edit. Among them are ''god'', ''patriot'', and ''native'' which surely are as gauche as the lyric in question.

Canadians should not be debating changing one element of their anthem without seriously considering the others. Moreover, it's helpful to examine what changing the lyrics mean in the first place. As an historian, it's likely unsurprising that I am not a fan of historical revisionism. We should always be conscientious of the meaning of history and we should not be keen to skip to change words in order to erase realities.

I would argue that would be a better strategy to engage in critically examining the lyrics, rather than changing them. This could happen at school, but it's naturally going to play out in the media cycles in the short term (for better or for worse) Perhaps we could even consider having two sets of lyrics. It may seem complicated, but this is in fact how history works.

Consider the case of Duncan Camphell Scott. It is unlikely you've ever heard of him, but he worked in what was then called the Department of Indian Affairs for 52 years and was instrumental in establishing the Indian Residential School System. He famously noted that we should kill the Indian in the child. It was not until 2014 that a plaque was erected near his grave which describes his ''notorious'' career in destroying the culture of millions of First Nations. His original grave was not touched.

That may make some people uncomfortable - the notion that we should leave his original memory intact. However, it's important to create new history rather than erasing the old one. The latter reminds me of the revolutionary zeal of 1789 or 1917. History should be studied, not retouched.

This bill is likely to pass now that the Liberals have a majority government. It may take some time to get sorted out, but in the interim, I'm thankful to sing the national anthem every morning in French.

Africa: Western Narratives

Yesterday there seemed to be no shortage of stories about the six Québec humanitarians who were killed in an attack in Burkina Faso. They were victims of an attack on Sunday where they died along with nearly thirty others. Listening to the reactions of residents of Beauport and Québec was difficult. The loss clearly shook so many people. However, the grief is situated, as it always seems to be, in a political context that fails to recognise why these acts are absolutely not ''senseless''.



Western narratives about Africa are intrinsically harmful. Not the least of which being that so few  understand the rich cultural, economic, and political diversity that exists across the continent. This is compounded by the ravages of colonialism between the 1870s and the 1970s and various forms of economic and cultural imperialism that have since taken the place of formal colonial structures.



Africa, in general, is presented as a monolithic place of poverty, corruption, and helplessness. In the rare moments when Africa is even considered in the west, these narratives play out incessantly. In the past year alone we've seen the ebola crisis, electoral corruption in Zimbabwe, the use of child labour in the DRC, and the rise of Islamic terrorism. All these various issues reinforce the image of Africa  as a place of problems, and one that is incapable of escaping this reality on its own.



It is, sadly, with this western narrative that so many Canadians go to Africa to help. It's well-intentioned and often makes a great impact. But what is routinely forgotten is that, in many ways, it is non-Africans who are deciding both how and when to address problems for locals. It is almost a boutique experience to go to Africa to make a very short-term impact. These expériences are in vogue. However, they are not necessarily replying to the actual need of locals who, largely, are absent from decision-making. It's the infantilisation of Africa.



Make no mistake, I do not condone this genre of terrorist attack against humanitarians, but I feel like there is no real desire to understand why this violence occurs - violence that is specifically targeted at westerners. It's easy to be outraged that people's lives are lost, but it is utterly infuriating to see such incomprehension when the answers are not hidden far from view. We merely have to draw back the curtain.

The Future of the NDP

It has now been a few unconfortable months since the federal election. In the time since, Trudeau has failed to remain outside the limelight for longer than few days. Whether it was the Paris Peace Conference, the arrival of Syrian refugees, or questions about his shoot with Vogue. As many outlets have addressed, Trudeau has stolen the show. But just what has this meant for the New Democrats?

On the morning after the election, I remember reading articles about the crushing defeat of the NDP. I can also recall reading heartfelt comments from and about longtime NDP members of parliament like Paul Dewar. The party was arguably even more surprised by its performance in 2015 than it was in 2011.

In the time since, Mulcair has retreated to shadows. We've become habituated to seeing Mulcair in parliament with his razor sharp questions for Harper. Now we are seeing a different show - with Rona Ambrose on the attack and Mulcair nowhere to be seen.

The question had been asked - if only for a short time - what happened to the NDP in the nearly three-month campaign. While the answer is unclear, this election was as much Trudeau's to win as it was Harper's or Mulcair's to lose.

At least some emphasis has to be placed on the fact that the Liberals escaped serious scrutiny by remaining in third place for some time. Moreover, when the tide did shift in their favour, it was just enough to gather that enthusiasm without a lot of the necessary questioning that comes afterward.

Mulcair, for his part, handled being in the lead poorly. This could have been for various reasons, but it is likely do to the fact that he has little charisma and was attempting too strongly to play to the centre.

In my view, it will continue to harm the NDP if these two items are not addressed. Jack Layton was someone who embodied the party's values and who didn't comprimise in order to win an election. It's a bit of an unfair comparison because Jack Layton was never in a position to win an election.

Mulcair is the product of a party with a conflicted purpose. Some New Democrats wanted to form governements; others were hoping to represent their social-democratic values.

This is, from my perspective, a case that will not continue to divide the NDP, but that will become more advanced as the party becomes more powerful. When our electoral system is reformed and the NDP invariably wins greater representation, there will be questions about what is more important - having principles or having a soap box.

For my part, Mulcair never appealed too much to me. When I ran for the party nomination in Kitchener-Centre, I redacted comments I had made about Mulcair for the sake of my campaign, but I know that many of my fellow New Democrats shared my concerns with leadership. Fortunately, talent runs deep in the NDP and the future of the party is certainly bright. I look forward to the next leadership convention.