November 23, 2024
January 6, 2024
HERE'S MY TAKE
Sorting through the confusion of 2024 U.S. politics will require the wisdom of Solomon.
Solomonic wisdom isn’t a commodity. Neither is that wisdom shown by Israel’s king over three millennia ago as straightforward as we often assume. “Cutting the baby in half” isn’t advice on how to find the compromise path out of a difficult challenge. In fact, a more careful recall of Solomon’s story reminds us that the proposed compromise was only a step toward a solution based on an understanding of basic human impulses.
The biblical story involves two single mothers, each of whom had recently had a child although one of the babies had tragically died. Each claimed that the remaining living child was hers. They wanted Solomon to resolve their dispute. Without available evidence beyond their competing claims, Solomon ordered cutting the baby in half (quite an unjust judicial decision by any objective standard). I don’t have any Jerusalem Post opinion pieces to document the court’s reaction, but surely principled observers would object to this as unjust both to the real mother (and there only could have been one), as well as to the child whose life would be callously sacrificed as collateral damage in this dispute resolution.
But Solomon understood that it wasn’t the decision but the response to the decision which would prove decisive. It was the judicial appeal of this unjust decision that exposed the missing evidence ultimately enabling justice to prevail. There are occasions when decisions matter directly. There are other times when the values behind our reactions to those decisions matter more.
The path to November’s election in the United States may involve up to six Supreme Court decisions. Insights will not provide a legal play-by-play or try to keep score. And even if we navigate all the way through November 5th with Mr. Trump on the ballot and elected, further arguments will ensue. If the constitution cannot be used to prevent Mr. Trump from running, can it prevent him from being installed? And would that then mean a Trump victory would translate into his vice-presidential running mate becoming president? Extend the timeline to at least January 20, 2025—the inauguration date—before this story is likely to be fully told. The only certainty between now and then is messiness.
There is no shortage of dire headlines describing the challenge Americans face with this election. “The 2024 election could be the end of democracy as we know it.” “Democracy is at stake in the 2024 US election.” The Council on Foreign Relations warns of "fears that it could lead to the demise of American democracy and upend the global order.” If we zoom out to the global picture, we see four billion people in 60 countries all casting ballots this year. Populist and authoritarian options are appearing on many of those ballots. It’s still too early to draw conclusions, except that 2024 represents some sort of tipping point for Western democracy with the U. S. presidential election serving as the headline feature.
It’s tempting to frame our analysis in the context of our political biases. It’s hard to find analysis that overcomes anti-Biden or anti-Trump tilts and framing. (Most of the arguments are raised with a negative rather than a positive framing these days.) Meaningful arguments require a common set of facts, which are hard to come by. The demise of contemporary media is not only driven by media economics and technological change but also by a redefinition of journalistic standards. James Bennet’s lengthy Economist exposé of the evolution of the New York Times’ editorial standards highlights how economic and cultural forces combine to promote an illiberal approach to journalism, with any platforming of opposing perspectives seen as harming rather than promoting debate. The debates about what might happen are hampered by not getting past the “he said-she said” as to what the base facts are regarding the qualification (or disqualification as the case may be) of candidates and the integrity of the legal decision-making process.
Given the significant impact of the United States on global security as well as economics (which is even more pronounced from a Canadian perspective where 62% of our GDP is tied to U.S. trade), what most crave is certainty and predictability. The majority of business folk I’ve spoken with in the past months (from a cross-section of Canadian geography and industry) are hesitant about 2024 prospects. That’s not because they fear any specific outcome of the election (“we can adjust to whatever happens” is a common confidence among business types) but rather because of the instability and uncertainty. They’re putting significant investment decisions on hold until the process sorts itself out and there is a clearer sense of how 2025 might look.
In that context, it seems most prudent not to overreact to the many decisions and polls that will have candidates on or off the ballot, winning or losing. More important than the decisions will be the reactions to those decisions. And like the two women making their arguments to Solomon, it will ultimately be the core convictions and foundational beliefs that will manifest themselves and prove decisive.
Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen. Relying on “the common sense of the common people” has been a bedrock belief of liberal democracy. It has provided confidence for generations that the impulse for a society to protect itself and its core values would win out. Back in 2020, Ross Douthat warned that ours was a “decadent society,” victimised by wealth and success and “stuck in a kind of cultural doom loop.” He interpreted the attraction of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the past decade as “a strong desire, from thinkers and activists on all sides, to escape decadence.” His take already four years ago was that the political disruption represented “a crisis from which a genuine transformation is likely to emerge” although he estimated “we are probably several generations from that.” What if he was right in all but the timeline?
We will see in 2024 whether our legal and political institutions are capable of managing this crisis. I’m not making predictions but neither am I going to get overly concerned about any individual decision or poll. I expect there will be lots of “tos and fros” in the year to come, and many decisions will be made, only to be overturned and overcome by the next decisions, until ultimately the ballots are counted on November 5th. The question then will be whether the declared result will be seen as legitimate and how voters will respond. The response will require more than loyalty to any specific candidate or brand, but an expression of core beliefs about the sort of values that shape our ability to live together in the midst of difference. What is on trial in 2024 is not so much American political institutions as American core beliefs.
What would Solomon do? We know what he did. He prayed for “an understanding mind to govern” and for the ability “to discern between good and evil.” He also governed with a longer view of the process. We would do well to remind ourselves regularly not to draw apocalyptic conclusions at every step of the way. It’s a long process and sometimes good results can even come from a bad decision.
As much as I am prepared to argue that liberal democracy is preferable to the alternative forms of government on offer today, the democratic processes and norms we have grown up with are not the be-all and end-all. Today’s populist and nationalist alternatives seem unwise and less respectful of the basic principles governing public life which frame my public theology. However, our preference for what is should not bind us into being blind defenders of the status quo. We also cannot pretend that our institutions and democratic processes were healthy prior to these recent disruptions. Ours may be the time in which significant structural changes occur that transform the norms of Western democracies.
Later in his life, Solomon wrote that as a king he had “to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven" and that it is "an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.” As much as we crave certainty and a happy outcome to all of the events which will confront us in the new year, I wonder whether it is a prayer for Solomonic wisdom (both for the decision-makers and the American people, and indeed all of us who value the order and freedom that we’ve taken for granted most of our lives) that is the imperative as we begin 2024.
WHAT I’M READING
The Book on MAID
March 17, 2024 is the implementation date for the expansion of euthanasia eligibility in Canada to those who are mentally ill. This matter remains controversial. Dr. Harvey Chochinov, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba argues in the Toronto Star that it’s time to put the brakes on the expansion of MAID. He notes that psychiatrists “are wrong half the time” in providing a prognosis of a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” (the requirement for MAID eligibility) and that the profession remains unable “to determine suicidality from those requesting MAID whose sole medical condition is mental illness.” A National Post report on Tyler Dunlop, who went from being homeless and requesting MAID to remaining very much alive and writing a book about the experience, adds poignancy to the case. The exposé that assisted suicide activists are very involved in the implementation process for MAID creates deep challenges on this file. It seems “the right-to-die foxes” are in charge of the “MAID regulatory henhouse.”
An UnSilky Road
Charles Burton maps the future for Canada-China trade relations, observing that even overcoming the current disputes and tensions is unlikely to lead to a return to the past relationship.
Upbringing Matters
It’s no surprise that the neighbourhood in which you grow up is a relatively reliable predictor of adult income levels. However, I did appreciate some of the nuances in this BNN story regarding what features are the most likely to produce upward economic mobility.
Four CEO Features
I read this HBR piece over the holidays, which highlighted four behaviours for success in organisational leadership: decisiveness, impactfulness, adaptability, and reliability. The research is a bit dated, but its descriptions resonated with my own experience.
Current History
Sean Speer’s essay relating his first-hand experience regarding “history wars” in the academy today is both timely and insightful. It’s a sobering tale, though I did appreciate Speer’s hint that the “new histories” that dominate these days carry with them the seeds of their own destruction.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Calendar turning marks an annual array of polls regarding trust, although this poll reported over the holidays by Global News was conducted in July 2023. The questions were inserted into the regular polling by the Prime Minister’s Office to guide the decision-making of the most senior levels of government. The poll indicated a low level of news engagement on the part of most Canadians, with internet searches, social media, and conversations with family/friends/colleagues all ranking higher than news outlets. Only seven percent indicated regularly reading a print newspaper. Quebec residents consistently scored higher trust marks for all institutions while Alberta residents were consistently indicating lower trust levels.
TAKE IT TO-GO
What Are The Odds?
Much was made regarding December 31, 2023 being the once-in-a-century date that can be numerically represented as 123123 (at least for those using the American date format). Regular readers know the odds are high that wordplay is the subject of this final Insights section, but I figured using this rare event to engage in a numbers-play take-away might even things out and please the numerophiles in the crowd.
Odds are an attempt to overcome uncertainty. The odds tell me it’s almost 500 times more likely that I will get hit by lightning than that I will win the lottery. That came to mind when during vacation board game adventures, I discovered a secret skill of rolling 7, 11, or doubles (which in the game Hear Me Out had bad consequences for me). Of course, odds do have their limit. The dice advice didn’t translate into buying a lottery ticket that day: being struck by lightning 250 times rather than 500 times before winning my millions really didn’t seem compelling.
Sharing this Insights newsletter with you once every seven days (actually 42 out of 52 weeks as we skip long weekends) doesn’t quite translate into lottery-winning rewards. With 123123 behind us, I will try to provide 12345 or so links (at least 19 times out of 20, plus or minus three percent) for you to reflect on as you savour your Saturday morning coffee. (I prefer an Americano with double sweetener by the way, but coffee is best described by savoury words, not numbers, so we’ll try not to ruin it.)
The feedback on my finishing up this newsletter with a light-hearted goodbye seems about 50-50 split between those who tell me it’s grown on them and those who say it groans on them. That’s enough for me. There are no plans to take away the take-away.
And with that, the first 2024 edition of Insights is complete. I’m glad you are along for the ride and I look forward to joining you again next Saturday morning.
Reply to Ray