Here’s what I wrote when he started packing up his Hill office.

Good luck!

Comments (41)

Comments (1)

I didn’t say that. God did, in Proverbs 14:21. 

Hillary Clinton’s meticulous, pedantic speech about the sin of Donald Trump’s racism  yesterday – about which many of you sent me emails and text messages, thank you – was a major speech. It was big. Not because of the subject matter – all of us have known for some time that Trump has built his campaign on a foundation of hate. It was extraordinary that, in this day and age, it was a speech that would need to be given in the first place. 

To wit:

1. A major candidate for the office of President of the United States is a proud racist, and he doesn’t hide it. 2. He regularly spews hate. 3. A third of Americans (at least) like what he says. 

Think about that. 

Hillary did, clearly, and she came up with a speech that read like an papal indictment of a blasphemer. It was sermon – thus my invocation of God, at the outset – and it was delivered with barely-controlled clerical fury. No music, no hoopla, just step up to the podium and lay waste to Trump, point by footnoted point. She eviscerated him. 

You can read it all here. You should.
As most of you know, I have been documenting and writing about racism and anti-Semitism and organized hate for more than three decades. I’ve written two books about the subject, Unholy Alliances and Web of Hate. Yesterday, in reaction to Hillary’s speech, most people referenced the latter. But it’s the (lesser-known) former book that is actually more relevant. In that book, I describe how white supremacists and neo-Nazis always devote considerable resources to coming up with a kinder, gentler names for themselves – and how the media are too often suckered into going along. (Back then, they called themselves “the third position.”)

Regrettably, Hillary went on, at some length, about the “alt right” yesterday. You can lose a lot of time trying to define it, which is what it’s adherents want you to do. They are big on semantics. Along with alt right, they variously refer to themselves as nativists, nationalists, populists, and sometimes even white nationalists. 

But they’re just racists. Racists. 

They hate immigration (because it brings in non-whites). They hate the financial system (because it is run by Jews). They hate cultural change (because it has given power to gays and lesbians and others). They hate everyone who isn’t like them, basically. 

Ipso facto, they’re just garden-variety bigots. And, therefore, it’s a mistake to do what Hillary did yesterday – call them “alt right,” when they’re simply “racists.” It’s a mistake to assist them in masking their true purpose. It’s a mistake to assist them in their lie. 

That criticism aside, her speech was one that will be remembered by history. It made me proud of her that she wanted to deliver that anti-racist sermon when she is so far ahead. 

And it made me sad that she needed to. 

Comments (19)

Comments (9)

And what a day it was. 

Comments (3)

I love this one. 

Comments (5)

BOSTON – I am a Democrat.

Philosophically, ideologically, emotionally: the political party I belong to, in my head and my heart, is the Democratic Party of the United States. And if I still lived Stateside, that’s the party I would be voting for, and the party I would be working for, 24/7. (Full disclosure: my wife and I are, in fact, volunteering on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign this Summer and Fall in both Maine and New York.)

This isn’t to say, however, that I’m not still a Liberal Party supporter, or that I don’t think the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party often have good ideas and good people. Notwithstanding their quirks and peccadilloes, I like Canadian partisans a lot. They’re passionate, intelligent, motivated folks – whether they be Grit, Tory or Dipper. They make a difference.

But, if we’re being honest with ourselves, the three main Canadian political parties aren’t all that different. They possess distinctions without differences. Case in point: the 2015 Canadian election campaign – when the New Democrats (with balanced budgets and billion-dollar budgets for defence) moved Right, the Liberals (with deficit spending and pulling out of the ISIS fight) moved Left, and the Conservatives (with their willingness to boot out any candidate who dared raise the topics of abortion or gay marriage) moved away from what they had once been.  

In 2015, and before, you needed a magnifying glass to detect dissimilarities between the Canadian political parties. The 2015 campaign was about personalities, not policy, and Justin Trudeau won because he had a nicer personality than the other two guys.

Not so here in the U.S. Here, there is true political clarity. Here, the contrasts are real and readily-seen. Here, there is (and usually is) a clear choice between two starkly-opposed political polarities.

Up in Canada, all of the Canadian political parties often become indistinguishable when they win the privilege of power. In government, they really aren’t all that different. Bob Rae’s New Democrats (appropriately) imposed austerity measures when they ran things in Ontario, Rachel Notley’s NDP enthusiastically (appropriately) supports pipelines and the Oil Patch, and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (appropriately) spent like drunken sailors in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 global recession. And Justin Trudeau’s Liberals (belatedly, but correctly) decided they’d been wrong about ISIS, and have committed Canada to something Harper never, ever did – troops on the ground, in harm’s way.

But here in the U.S.? The Democrats and the Republicans approach governing very differently. The former believe government can be a force for good, and the latter simply don’t. The aforementioned 2008-2009 global recession came about precisely because Republicans eliminated government’s ability to regulate Wall Street’s excesses. Democrats, meanwhile, proudly used government power and spending to clean up the GOP’s mess.

In the U.S., they don’t pussyfoot around with Orwellian Newspeak, like Canadians do on the issue of abortion. Up in Canada, we prattle on about “choice” and play semantic games, calling one side “pro-life” and the other “pro-choice,” so that they almost sound like they believe in the same thing. South of the border, the issue is “abortion,” and you are either for it (like the Democrats always are) or you are against it (like the Republicans always are). I’m for it. Abortion should be safe, rare and legal.

In the U.S., Democrats don’t like capital punishment, and the Republicans do. But Democrats – like me – believe that sometimes the state is entitled to apply the ultimate penalty. When there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – in the case of Paul Bernardo, say, who tortured and raped and murdered children on film – Democrats reluctantly accept that capital punishment can and should be applied. I do, too.

In the U.S., Democrats don’t particularly like war, while Republicans think it is the solution to every problem. But, unlike in Canada – where our defence capacity has been underfunded and underwhelming for generations, through successive governments of all stripes, and where we depend on other nations to maintain our national defence – Democrats are unafraid to use military might when diplomacy fails.  

Thus, Hillary Clinton pushed for the assassination of Osama bin Laden, Bill Clinton led the military effort to stop the Bosnian genocide, and Barack Obama has raised military spending to historic highs – comparatively higher than it was during Ronald Reagan’s Cold War buildup, in fact. Under Obama, for example, Obama’s “surge” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan was double what it was under George W. Bush. Democrats aren’t wimps.

It’s worth noting, at his point, that most Canadians mostly agree with the Democratic position on all of the stuff above. An Ipsos poll showed in February that six in ten Canadian favour abortion “in any circumstances.” For years, in poll after poll, an equivalent number of Canadians – about two-thirds – support the death penalty. And various surveys over the past decade show slightly fewer Canadians support more or stable defence spending – about half. 

But, when it comes to taking on the likes of ISIS, as many as three in four Canadians opposed Trudeau’s promise to withdraw from the anti-ISIS bombing mission. And nearly as many want to see more resources devoted to the anti-ISIS fight.

See? I may be Democrat, but the majority of Canadians are, too. 

Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats, take note.  

 

Comments (23)

More proof below. Not bad. 

Comments (10)

The manager of Calgary’s first punk band, the Social Blemishes, has died suddenly. What a shock. 

Hadn’t seen him in years, but what great times we had, back then. 

Deepest condolences to his family. Man, time goes fast. Gravity Thugs forever.

Tom.

Comments (2)

Dear musicians: I've worked in politics & music: don't give politicians all-access passes. They try & make the show all about them. Yours, W

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) August 21, 2016

Comments (6)