Expecting that Carney has a full answer that he has in his hip pocket and is keeping us in the dark is not realistic.
What I took away was that things are broken and we're going to need to be nimble and quick and walk our way through working with other countries to forge something new for which nobody knows what's that's going to look like.
This has been politics in Canada forever in that a new leader emerges and everybody expects answers and results within a matter of weeks when you know getting things done over a matter of years is actually a major accomplishment for major changes within Canada and even more so internationally.
On the contrary, I absolutely don't expect Carney to have everything figured out, nor do I expect him to reinvent the wheel.
I'm really making two points, here: One is that we've already figured out a ton of strategies to constrain power and impose costs on illiberal powers, but Carney seems to be writing them off as too broken to be worth the trouble, as least for right now. I think that's an error. Two is that there's really no limit to what kind of ambition we ought to have, but that if Carney expects domestic or international buy-in, he needs to start telegraphing those plans ASAP.
Now, I'm far from giving up. I think the speech was a good bit of telegraphing. But I think it's really important he start committing himself to some tangible solutions: Luckily, lots of smart people have put some on the table. He just needs to figure out what he wants to champion and get going. It's not simple, of course, but it's also very pressing. We don't have a ton of time to lose.
This is a great accounting of how we got to this point … but patience, Justin. We first need to take in this new reality and there is a way forward which Carney and Stubbs have identified. Middle powers need to get organized and collectively recognize and use their power. This does not mean abandoning the values of liberal democracy, rather of using them. The way forward is still unclear because history is still unfolding and certainly adaptations will be necessary. But I have no doubt that there are seeds of a new vision germinating. We have just begun the process of watering and fertilizing them.
I don't think I could disagree with a thing you've written.
But the core of my apprehension is not really about what Carney wants to do, it's in the gap between ambition and execution. I don't think any of us fans of the world order we've spent a century building think that it is perfect, nor that it couldn't be replaced with something better. But can we build it without a world power onside? Can we build it in 5 years? Can building it avert the tide of reactionary populism?
I confess I've got more confidence in Carney, the man/politician, than I've had in any politician I've covered in ages. But I also know how broken the mechanics of power in Canada are. And no one man can fix that without a robust team and without national buy-in. I'm not sure he has either.
The speech in Davos was great, even if I'm skeptical of some of the assertions. But where is the speech in Moose Jaw invoking the need for national participation? Where is the Canada Strong rally in Penticton? The national unity rally in Shawinigan? The anti-America confab in Glace Bay? I don't think he accomplishes the degree of change he wants to make without creating a national movement out of it, and I think he's a very far way away from that.
I know the comparison to Trump's flexible réalism is a bit glib, but I think it's worth addressing that both are equally vague and all-encompassing statements. Neither really matters until we try and impose it over the things the leaders do. We know that Trump's policy means (particularly because it allows him to do whatever he wants for whatever reason) what does the Carney Doctrine mean in real terms? We still don't entirely know.
Anyway. There's my annex to the piece I've been meaning to rewrite.
Absolutely. But I do think there is a bad habit in politics, particularly amongst new politicians, where they think they must innovate and blaze an entirely new trail.
New ideas are great. We shouldn't let the city burn while we wait for them to come online, however. Defending what works, and using tactics that've had success in the past, is a good place to start, and can be done quicker than building new things.
As the Prime Minister noted, it is American power that has undergirded the rules-based order since 1945. Power not wishful thinking. The Soviet Union could have easily crushed revolts in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. It was Soviet forbearance, not Havel’s idealism which was decisive. In his speech, Carney didn’t focus on China, but China has become a master at gaming the international rules based order. Behind all this liberal gnashing of teeth, lies the naked truth that the rise of China is undermining American military hegemony.
I think that's a very good point! Particularly as Xi undergoes yet another purge to eliminate friction within his own ruling class. But the fact is: It is going to be next to impossible to constrain three (plus Russia) illiberal powers at the same time. So how do we prioritize, without creating the conditions for one power to exploit the uncertainty?
Mark Carney is wedded to the regimes of central banks that have propounded the monetarist economic theories initiated in the 1980s with the elections of Thatcher and Reagan. Pumping the lever of interest rates to resolve imbalances only flooded economies with cheap debt, causing massive asset bubbles. Income inequality has hit measures seen before the crash of 1929. When the rich keep getting richer and the poor, poorer...a break will be forthcoming and a new order will built upon the ashes of what preceded it.
If there is one thing I would note about Carney it's that he is rapidly adapted from being a central banker to being a Prime mMnister. His mannerisms, what he says and how he says it and how he moves quickly to work with potential allies and what he's proposing moving forward is nothing like a central banker or solely about monetary policy.
We'll see how aggressive he will be on the fiscal front to intensify the building of a new economy. His government has introduced legislation to give debt relief to students. More of this debt forgiveness may be necessary to relieve the record high accumulation of personal debt that is crowding out the means for greater productivity in the Canadian economy.
I think this is a pretty valid point, and I think there's a good debate to be had about whether domestic economic reform is necessary to enable our self-defense against America, or whether we're better off preserving the status quo while we're defending ourselves.
I think the answer is the latter, but I wouldn't say I'm *that* confident about it. I'm just not sure that more economic upheaval would be helpful.
I've been reluctant to share my views on this speech because the reception was so universally admired it feels a bit like dumping cold water on a party. And I definitely applaud the leadership and eloquence of the speech. But I think you helped identify the thing that was bothering me about it. I've been pretty well immersed in the critical view of the "rules-based order," and quite familiar with its pitfalls. But I have also come to admire so many achievements of the various organizations and bodies, large and small, that exemplify global cooperation. Of course it's a fiction, but a fiction with real world and often beneficial results. Something about the speech felt dismissive of that, even if it wasn't the intention. Also, Trump is very unpopular in the US, it's not like he's being lauded for his foreign policy (outside of the MAGA base, which admittedly is larger than I'd like). I hope that Carney and like-minded leaders are willing to stand up for what exists of this system not just when it's convenient, but when it's inconvenient too.
I'm not sure I share your perspective on Mark Carney's speech, Justin. It was an eloquent /tour de force/ in that it criticized primarily the US without ever naming it. No, we've not been living a lie (and therefore Havel's metaphor doesn't really apply but it served to make the point anyway). The old world order *worked,* more or less, for the past 80 years. It no longer does.
Carney's proposal is for alternative orders, alliances, issue by issue. I admit this will ever only go so far, but it's a pragmatic approach to the world's problems. He calls it "values-based realism," and I suggest this is quite distinct from Trump's "flexible realism" you described so well in your Dispatch #147.
Actually, the part that jarred most in this piece was "...Trump promises to push shared norms with liberal nations and cooperate with illiberal ones. " In Dispatch #147 you quoted him as saying: “push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms, furthering our interests as we do so.” Liberal or like-minded friends, there sure is a difference from Trump's p.o.v..
Expecting that Carney has a full answer that he has in his hip pocket and is keeping us in the dark is not realistic.
What I took away was that things are broken and we're going to need to be nimble and quick and walk our way through working with other countries to forge something new for which nobody knows what's that's going to look like.
This has been politics in Canada forever in that a new leader emerges and everybody expects answers and results within a matter of weeks when you know getting things done over a matter of years is actually a major accomplishment for major changes within Canada and even more so internationally.
On the contrary, I absolutely don't expect Carney to have everything figured out, nor do I expect him to reinvent the wheel.
I'm really making two points, here: One is that we've already figured out a ton of strategies to constrain power and impose costs on illiberal powers, but Carney seems to be writing them off as too broken to be worth the trouble, as least for right now. I think that's an error. Two is that there's really no limit to what kind of ambition we ought to have, but that if Carney expects domestic or international buy-in, he needs to start telegraphing those plans ASAP.
Now, I'm far from giving up. I think the speech was a good bit of telegraphing. But I think it's really important he start committing himself to some tangible solutions: Luckily, lots of smart people have put some on the table. He just needs to figure out what he wants to champion and get going. It's not simple, of course, but it's also very pressing. We don't have a ton of time to lose.
Exactly.
This is a great accounting of how we got to this point … but patience, Justin. We first need to take in this new reality and there is a way forward which Carney and Stubbs have identified. Middle powers need to get organized and collectively recognize and use their power. This does not mean abandoning the values of liberal democracy, rather of using them. The way forward is still unclear because history is still unfolding and certainly adaptations will be necessary. But I have no doubt that there are seeds of a new vision germinating. We have just begun the process of watering and fertilizing them.
Certainly true! I'm not pretending to have the answers here, either. But all the conditions are right for action. There's no better time to act.
I don't think I could disagree with a thing you've written.
But the core of my apprehension is not really about what Carney wants to do, it's in the gap between ambition and execution. I don't think any of us fans of the world order we've spent a century building think that it is perfect, nor that it couldn't be replaced with something better. But can we build it without a world power onside? Can we build it in 5 years? Can building it avert the tide of reactionary populism?
I confess I've got more confidence in Carney, the man/politician, than I've had in any politician I've covered in ages. But I also know how broken the mechanics of power in Canada are. And no one man can fix that without a robust team and without national buy-in. I'm not sure he has either.
The speech in Davos was great, even if I'm skeptical of some of the assertions. But where is the speech in Moose Jaw invoking the need for national participation? Where is the Canada Strong rally in Penticton? The national unity rally in Shawinigan? The anti-America confab in Glace Bay? I don't think he accomplishes the degree of change he wants to make without creating a national movement out of it, and I think he's a very far way away from that.
I know the comparison to Trump's flexible réalism is a bit glib, but I think it's worth addressing that both are equally vague and all-encompassing statements. Neither really matters until we try and impose it over the things the leaders do. We know that Trump's policy means (particularly because it allows him to do whatever he wants for whatever reason) what does the Carney Doctrine mean in real terms? We still don't entirely know.
Anyway. There's my annex to the piece I've been meaning to rewrite.
(And thank you!)
And it is accepted wisdom that identifying the problem is the first of many steps in resolving it.
I suspect Carney and Stubbs have some ideas but don't have the full picture figured out yet?
Absolutely. But I do think there is a bad habit in politics, particularly amongst new politicians, where they think they must innovate and blaze an entirely new trail.
New ideas are great. We shouldn't let the city burn while we wait for them to come online, however. Defending what works, and using tactics that've had success in the past, is a good place to start, and can be done quicker than building new things.
As the Prime Minister noted, it is American power that has undergirded the rules-based order since 1945. Power not wishful thinking. The Soviet Union could have easily crushed revolts in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. It was Soviet forbearance, not Havel’s idealism which was decisive. In his speech, Carney didn’t focus on China, but China has become a master at gaming the international rules based order. Behind all this liberal gnashing of teeth, lies the naked truth that the rise of China is undermining American military hegemony.
I think that's a very good point! Particularly as Xi undergoes yet another purge to eliminate friction within his own ruling class. But the fact is: It is going to be next to impossible to constrain three (plus Russia) illiberal powers at the same time. So how do we prioritize, without creating the conditions for one power to exploit the uncertainty?
I certainly don't have the answer to that.
Mark Carney is wedded to the regimes of central banks that have propounded the monetarist economic theories initiated in the 1980s with the elections of Thatcher and Reagan. Pumping the lever of interest rates to resolve imbalances only flooded economies with cheap debt, causing massive asset bubbles. Income inequality has hit measures seen before the crash of 1929. When the rich keep getting richer and the poor, poorer...a break will be forthcoming and a new order will built upon the ashes of what preceded it.
If there is one thing I would note about Carney it's that he is rapidly adapted from being a central banker to being a Prime mMnister. His mannerisms, what he says and how he says it and how he moves quickly to work with potential allies and what he's proposing moving forward is nothing like a central banker or solely about monetary policy.
We'll see how aggressive he will be on the fiscal front to intensify the building of a new economy. His government has introduced legislation to give debt relief to students. More of this debt forgiveness may be necessary to relieve the record high accumulation of personal debt that is crowding out the means for greater productivity in the Canadian economy.
I think this is a pretty valid point, and I think there's a good debate to be had about whether domestic economic reform is necessary to enable our self-defense against America, or whether we're better off preserving the status quo while we're defending ourselves.
I think the answer is the latter, but I wouldn't say I'm *that* confident about it. I'm just not sure that more economic upheaval would be helpful.
I've been reluctant to share my views on this speech because the reception was so universally admired it feels a bit like dumping cold water on a party. And I definitely applaud the leadership and eloquence of the speech. But I think you helped identify the thing that was bothering me about it. I've been pretty well immersed in the critical view of the "rules-based order," and quite familiar with its pitfalls. But I have also come to admire so many achievements of the various organizations and bodies, large and small, that exemplify global cooperation. Of course it's a fiction, but a fiction with real world and often beneficial results. Something about the speech felt dismissive of that, even if it wasn't the intention. Also, Trump is very unpopular in the US, it's not like he's being lauded for his foreign policy (outside of the MAGA base, which admittedly is larger than I'd like). I hope that Carney and like-minded leaders are willing to stand up for what exists of this system not just when it's convenient, but when it's inconvenient too.
I'm not sure I share your perspective on Mark Carney's speech, Justin. It was an eloquent /tour de force/ in that it criticized primarily the US without ever naming it. No, we've not been living a lie (and therefore Havel's metaphor doesn't really apply but it served to make the point anyway). The old world order *worked,* more or less, for the past 80 years. It no longer does.
Carney's proposal is for alternative orders, alliances, issue by issue. I admit this will ever only go so far, but it's a pragmatic approach to the world's problems. He calls it "values-based realism," and I suggest this is quite distinct from Trump's "flexible realism" you described so well in your Dispatch #147.
Actually, the part that jarred most in this piece was "...Trump promises to push shared norms with liberal nations and cooperate with illiberal ones. " In Dispatch #147 you quoted him as saying: “push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms, furthering our interests as we do so.” Liberal or like-minded friends, there sure is a difference from Trump's p.o.v..
Excellent video, by the way.
I replied to your comment above ("I don't disagree with a thing you've written...") but gremlins posted it out of thread.