November 7, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
I watched Tuesday's American midterm election results from deep in the heart of Texas—or, more precisely, from a San Antonio airport hotel lounge. To my left were three Michiganders who, judging by their commentary, were hardly enthusiastic Trump supporters. To my right were two Idaho residents who seemed considerably more sympathetic to the president, albeit somewhat apologetic and reluctant to defend his more extravagant pronouncements.
There I sat, a Canadian between the American left and right, watching both the returns and a crowded lounge of presumably business travellers, comparing notes on the surprise that most were expressing regarding the decisiveness of the results. Part of the surprise was that the midterm election night watch party that our work travels had brought us together for was far less dramatic than anticipated. Most excused themselves with the note that we all would be in bed much earlier than we expected when we came down to join the party.
But the significance of the election isn’t the drama provided by the election night coverage, as much as that gives some of us a strange adrenaline rush not unlike a sporting playoff deciding game – even if it is for a sport we don’t follow closely. The election results confirm at least three more consequential happenings worth paying attention to: public accountability of the government from the preceding term; a mandate for governing in the upcoming term; and a framing of the political narrative likely to define the political debate for the foreseeable future.
When it comes to accountability, a midterm election in the United States is more of an accountability check than most general elections. President Clinton lost both the House and Senate in the 1994 midterms, while the midterms during the presidencies of Obama, Trump (45), and Biden all saw the president’s party lose the House. President George Bush’s 2002 midterms, in which the Republicans gained control of the Senate, are the only recent exception to that trend, and that election occurred in the wake of 9/11.
While it is important not to overreact to the decisiveness of this week’s results, it also needs to be acknowledged that few presidents have made midterms as much about themselves as did President Trump. Not only did he directly involve himself in the primary process, effectively handpicking some of the highest-profile candidates who ended up losing, he also campaigned at an exhausting pace in recent weeks, holding almost daily headline-grabbing rallies, and directly made the case that voters should vote as if he were on the ballot. They did.
Even Vice President Vance acknowledged Wednesday that “our voters did show up” but the “problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.” Vance explains that it was primarily the war with Iran, but that is just one of many competing explanations that circulated this week. My guess is a mix of all of them, but I thought one Kansas voter I met on my travels captured the angst well. He did not tell me how he voted (either in 2024 or this week), but he did admit to taking almost 15 minutes behind the voter screen, second-guessing his intention. He admitted greater policy sympathy with the Republican Senate candidate on offer but concluded that “he and his leader were buffoons” and the Democrat challenger, Adam Hamilton, a socially progressive Democrat who serves as a United Methodist pastor, “is a decent guy” who this voter expected would contribute to a more civil political discourse.
But this election wasn’t just about the past two years; it also sets the stage for U.S. governance in the next two years. Canadians need to remind themselves of how different our system is from the American system in situations like this. When our executive and legislative branches differ, like in minority government situations where a government bill fails to pass, we end up with another election. In the US, we end up with a semi-lame-duck government, with the president able to veto much of what the legislatures pass and the legislatures able to complicate but not really prevent the president from acting on a wide range of issues without their consent, foreign policy and trade being among the most relevant at this time.
It’s too early to tell whether Democrats will use their powers in the Senate and House to limit the president wherever they can and emphasize accountability mechanisms, including impeachment proceedings, that are within their power. The alternative would be to go into “horse-trading” mode with the president, agreeing to pass some of the things that would enable him to do what he wants to get done in exchange for his not vetoing certain things that the Democrats want done. While that sounds more productive and civil, it rarely produces good government focused on the common good, as the partisan political risks and rewards become the primary criteria which determine priorities.
Given the size and stature of the United States in the world, this has significance well beyond the American borders. From a Canadian perspective, the pressure to end the war in Iran, which will now intensify on the president from both sides of the House, may translate into lower oil prices. This would be good news for consumers and affordability, although a bit more challenging for the Canadian governments whose revenues benefit significantly from higher oil prices. As for the trade negotiations that had picked up again in the lead-up to the midterms, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the results will continue to put pressure on getting a deal or embolden a president chastened by American voters to take it out on Canada (for whom he clearly does not have a heart of affection at this time).
Perhaps the most significant impact of this week’s results is how they will serve as a kickoff and set the frame for the 2028 presidential election. For Republicans, the debate will be over what exactly Trumpism means without Trump. Is it a set of policies, a political temperament, or a personal loyalty that can't easily transfer to a successor? If being a Republican but not supporting Trump has meant you were a politically homeless RINO – Republican in Name Only – for the past decade, what fills the vacuum when Trump is no longer the authoritative definer of Republican policy?
How permanent are the reorganized voting coalitions that formed after Trump and, perhaps most significantly, will those previously non-engaged voters he successfully recruited into active support continue to be involved? Vice President Vance has already signalled that preserving the America First movement may require repudiating some of the decisions made in its name.
For Democrats, the question is whether opposition to Trump is sufficient to unite a party whose moderate and progressive wings offer competing visions of America's future. Victories by candidates as different as Kansas pastor Adam Hamilton, Texas populist James Talarico, and Michigan progressive Abdul El-Sayed suggest that Tuesday's results provide no definitive answer about which direction the party should take.
Which brings us back to the three functions of an election. Tuesday's results delivered a verdict on the past two years, established a new balance of power for the next two, and opened a contest over the political direction of the years beyond. The first verdict is in, the second will be tested in Washington, and the third remains very much unsettled.
For Canadians and the rest of the world, that last question may prove the most consequential. We cannot afford to organize our future around the assumption that the next American president will simply turn back the clock. There is very little evidence from either side to support that nostalgic prospect that still seems to be part of many Canadians’ expectations.
Election night may have ended earlier than expected, but the arguments it set in motion will keep us up for some time yet.
WHAT I’M READING
Budget Day in Canada
Thursday saw the presentation of this federal government’s second budget boldly titled, “Masters of Our Destiny.” It proposes major investments in productivity, infrastructure, housing, and economic sovereignty, with a projected $62.3 billion deficit for 2026–27, as outlined in this Canadian Press overview. I didn’t have time to read through the 511 pages of detail, but it seems the emphasis is on the potential for private investment, stronger productivity, and greater economic independence, raising the central question of whether today's substantial spending will generate tomorrow's promised growth. Charles Lammam, writing critically in The Hub, argues that Ottawa squandered an opportunity for fiscal restraint by committing $152 billion of a $158 billion improvement in its fiscal outlook to new measures, leaving mounting debt and interest costs.
Resurgence of the Religious Left?
Jack Jenkins provided an interesting take on Tuesday’s election results as it related to a resurgence of the American religious left. Democratic victories by Texas Presbyterian seminarian James Talarico, Kansas megachurch pastor Adam Hamilton, and several other candidates who explicitly grounded their campaigns in Christian faith are seen by some to reflect a new movement. Their success challenges the familiar identification of politically engaged Christianity with the Republican right, offering a competing religious vocabulary emphasizing compassion, inclusion, and social justice. Canada has had a long history of a social gospel/religious left influence in our politics (Tommy Douglas, J.S. Woodsworth and others being significant names in our political history), but I am not literate enough in American political history to comment on the extent to which this reflects a resurgence or a new chapter.
Hutterites on Social Media?
How many successful Hutterite social media influencers have you met? Macleans profiled members of a rural Manitoba Hutterite colony, including one with her own YouTube channel, and asked the question: what can we learn from the way they “handle the storm of socially disruptive technology”?
What Are The Odds?
Gambling is in the news, with MPs debating a Senate bill which would place federal restrictions on gambling advertising. Our own Renze Nauta appeared at committee to support these changes, and he and Brian Dijkema wrote down their practical and theological concerns on Canada’s gambling policy for The Gospel Coalition Canada.
Renaming Our Streets
Ottawa Life published an opinion piece I contributed regarding the principles at stake in naming (and renaming) our public spaces, prompted by a move to rename Trump Avenue. Too often, commemoration defaults to politicians, royalty, or geography, overlooking the entrepreneurs, community builders, and ordinary citizens whose contributions have shaped our common life. Remembering our predecessors honestly, acknowledging both their achievements and shortcomings, is not merely an exercise in nostalgia but an opportunity to cultivate gratitude, civic responsibility, and a sense of what we owe future generations.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
In connection with a health conference held in Toronto this week, Leger published the results of a mid-October poll which asked a representative sample of Canadians about various aspects of our health care system.
The general conclusion that 84% of Canadians believe change is necessary—58% believing major change is necessary—is hardly a surprise, but additionally, it provided important data on specific issues. In the midst of the euthanasia debates, it is telling that 37% know someone for whom a condition worsened while on a health care wait list and, alarmingly, 11% indicated that they knew someone who had been offered euthanasia while dealing with a potentially treatable condition.
Some fear that the decline of the health system will result in people not accessing it, having given up on the prospect of timely treatment, and the survey showed that 50% of Canadians said that they had avoided visiting a hospital or doctor for that reason. Concern about the Canadian health system is well-documented and longstanding. Unfortunately, the preoccupation with MAID in recent years has detracted from some of the larger debates we need.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Caveat Emptor
Using Latin for “buyer beware” can seem a bit show-offy and snobbish, rather like dropping IFYKYK (if you know, you know) into a paragraph. Both signal an awareness that different audiences may interpret the same words differently. A tweet (it still just seems awkward to call it a post on X) by the Greensboro Police Department this week took this double messaging to a whole new level. Their Monday post went viral: “If your cocaine dealer shorted you and didn't supply you with the full amount of product, contact us at 336-373-2222 to file an official complaint.” I’ll readily confess to chuckling out loud, although in this context, saying it cracked me up might be misunderstood.
Addiction is no laughing matter, but there is something wonderfully absurd about police offering consumer protection for those involved in the illegal drug trade. One might say it is taking consumer protection to a whole new high, with the potential of an all-expenses-paid stay courtesy of the state as a reward. While the post addresses those who may feel shortchanged, whoever runs social media for the Greensboro Police Department certainly delivered more than expected.
That’s Insights for another week. This coming Wednesday is Remembrance Day, and Insights joins those honouring our veterans and remembering the sacrifices that secured freedoms we too easily take for granted. We hope to be back in your inbox with a fresh offering next Saturday morning.
Til then.
Reply to Ray