Democratic candidates in Oregon's Second Congressional District

They aren't just candidates with an uphill battle.

They are content creators with an opportunity.

Democratic Candidates for Congress for Oregon's bright-red Second District

A political party isn't shaped by a central leadership. There is no "official voice" for Democrats. The Democratic National Committee put its heavy thumb on Democrats in the past decade, with disastrous results. They forbade a Democratic primary in the 2024 election, thereby letting Biden sleepwalk into the nomination and eventual disaster.

I get solicitation calls for money from the DNC approximately weekly. I tell the unfortunate callers to quit their jobs, that the DNC gaslit America by cosseting Biden. Then I hang up. The DNC doesn't represent the Democratic Party.

So who does speak for the Democratic Party? Anybody, but especially candidates for office, including the four women in the photograph above.

Political candidates are performers. People with the talent, insight, and luck might meet a certain moment in the culture. They catch on. Other performers get on the bandwagon. No central authority created the Southern California "beach" sound.The Beach Boys and Jan and Dean sang about a certain lifestyle and that genre became popular. The Beatles led what became "the British invasion."  Bob Dylan re-invented Woody Guthrie. There was no central authority, no musical DNC. Talented practitioners create brands. Bernie Sanders caught on and reshaped Democrats. Trump caught on and reshaped Republicans.

The Texas U.S. Senate primary pits two brands, and the success of one of them will get noticed and copied. 

Jasmine Crockett

Jasmine Crocket is a young, sassy, in-your-face confrontational voice, an AOC-type figure, saying things that pissed-off Democrats think. As a Democratic member of Congress, she creates viral moments in hearings. She doesn't talk about bridge-building. 

James Talarico, currently a Texas state representative, embodies earnestness. He is overtly Christian, talks about faith, and cites Biblical virtues. Clips of him shaming Texas Republicans by pointing out moral hypocrisy have made him a celebrity.

James Talarico

His "what would Jesus do?" arguments re-position the Democratic brand by recentering the moral basis of politics away from an urban secular-humanist perspective toward a religious one familiar to traditional church-goers. 

Voters will look them over and make choices. The betting site Kalshi gives Talerico a 1% chance of being the Democratic nominee for president. A $10 bet will pay off at $991 dollars. It could happen. Fifty years ago, in response to corruption in the Nixon administration, voters picked among the various Democratic candidates and chose an unknown Jimmy Carter, a former governor who taught Sunday School. For a while Democrats were the party of soft-spoken do-gooders, who turned down their thermostats and cared about human rights in foreign affairs.

Successful candidates define the brand.

Candidates for Congress in Oregon's Second District have nothing to lose by being bold and shedding old ideas and policies. The Democratic brand is unpopular.

The District

The partisan skew

A rural county in the district

There are districts in America where one might think, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This isn't one of them.

These candidates are not stuck. They can slough off  Democratic brand baggage of unpopular ideas that persist out of inertia. The Democratic brand is currently shaped by people in bright blue urban districts. It doesn't have to be that way.

These candidates could push reset. They could fix what is broke, take the criticism -- because reformers always get it --  and make their case boldly anyway. People might credit their authenticity and courage.  Or not. In any case, they can define themselves by trying out policies that connect with this constituency, and on their own authority as a Democrat and a citizen, claim to be a legitimate voice of Democrats in 2026. 

Put it out there. Sell it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

HA!

Trump hoist on his own petard.

"I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!"

        Donald Trump, November 7, 2020

Ashland attorney Conde Cox makes a modest proposal. What if Americans humor the deteriorating old man as he continues his monomania? 

For five years Trump has claimed that he won the 2020 election, often insisting that he won in a landslide. If only he were believed by the people who count and recount votes, and the election auditors, and the Republican secretaries of state, his Republican cybersecurity director, his Republican attorney general, and the multiple judges and appellate judges.  

What if we granted Trump his wish? 

Cox Cox is no stranger to finding quirks and loopholes in documents. He is a commercial and business disputes lawyer and an expert on businesses in trouble. He is the immediate past president of the Federal Bar Association — Oregon Chapter. He has been rated for many years as a Thomson-Reuters "Super Lawyer" in the field of business bankruptcy. 

Cox

Guest Post by Conde Cox 

For five years, Donald Trump has continuously cried out and complained that he won the 2020 election fair and square. He recently sent Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to Georgia in order to seize all 2020 ballot boxes to preserve the evidence he claims will show the fraud that cost him the 2020 election. In a speech given a few weeks ago in Davos, The Donald told the entire world that the 2020 election was “rigged” in favor of Joe Biden and that The Donald was the real winner!

Let’s just all tell him that we agree. You won in 2020, Donald. Happy now?

Here is the catch:

If The Donald is now agreed to have won in 2020, then he is also now constitutionally required to leave the White House immediately!

The 22d Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

THEREFORE, Trump was disqualified from being elected in 2024 because -- as he has claimed and we now agree --  prior to 2024 he was twice elected, in 2016 and in 2020.

This literally legally correct, yet outrageous conclusion, should actually apply in real life in the case of Donald Trump, because this is the same guy, after all, who incited a violent riot on January 6, 2021, when Congress was counting the states’ electoral votes. It was Trump's stated purpose to trigger the 12th Amendment, which kicks presidential voting to a one-vote-per-state process in the House of Representatives if disputes over the validity of electoral votes prevent one person from collecting a majority of the votes. That way, with one vote per state, the Republican nominee would win because there is a majority of Republican-led states, many of them with small populations. Hence, we got the violence of January 6. 

 Here is the text of the 12th Amendment:

. . . if no person have such majority [of electoral votes], then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.

He wanted to override the voters' choice in 2020 using a quirk in the language of the Constitution. OK, Donald, two can play that game. 

My modest proposal is not so outrageous if you agree that Trump should be estopped from denying that he won in 2020. He cannot assert repeatedly that he won in 2020 and file legal pleadings in over 60 cases asserting the same, and then be allowed to withdraw that position. He is stuck with it. It does not matter that Donald was not sworn in on January 20. 2021, and it does not matter that he did not serve a second term starting on that date. The Constitution does not say that failure to serve as president means that that term does not count. The 22nd Amendment speaks to elections. You get only two. He got his two: 2016 and 2020.

Therefore, by the same kind of constitutional loophole that The Donald tried to use to stay in office after 2020, a quirk in constitutional language can be used to evict The Donald from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now. 

I hereby nominate Chief Justice John Roberts to serve the eviction writ.

Tomorrow: Back to the serious job of looking at how the Democratic Party can become a popular governing party.  Spoiler: Change won't come from the DNC.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Denial will doom Democrats. Getting real will save them.

Yesterday's post brought this scoffing comment: 

Hilarious. The premise of "chaos" is a Republican talking point just like "woke". 

The "illegal alien problem" would be solved overnight with a few CEO prosecutions. Of course the economy would collapse, but at least you could shrug off the obvious racism, so much for that.

In the meantime Trump raids the Treasury and sets up himself and his kids as royalty, but never mind. "The Immigrants!!"

I love this comment mocking my post. So I am just succumbing to Republican talking points, and "illegal alien problem" belongs in scare quotes.  

It makes the point of why it is so hard for Democrats to get out of the rut that they are in.

Yes, they are in a rut.

I hear the resistance in some of my readers' minds. But Democrats are popular in cities! They came within a single percent of winning! If only Jill Stein had butted out! Trump is losing popularity! The midterms will be great!

I look at it differently. Democrats are competitive only because Republicans have attached themselves to a vile, openly dishonest, self-serving felon, who was convicted of sexual assault, who was overheard on tape bragging about grabbing women by the  p----- , who has something to hide as regards Epstein, who flouts every Christian virtue, who is holding businesses and law firms up to extortion for personal gain, who is openly defying Congress and the courts, and who incited a violent mob to attack the Capitol to overthrow an election.  And Democrats are almost, but not quite, competitive with that disgusting mess of a man and president. That is a very low achievement.

Trump is president and the House and Senate are Republican because voters in wide swaths of the country find Democrats so unacceptable that they prefer a tireless antagonist of Democrats. They deny and minimize Trump's bad behavior to do anything other than vote for a Democrat.

"Wow. That was harsh," I hear readers thinking. Aren't Democrats getting popular again?  Alas, no.

Real Clear Politics

Gallup

Voters find Democrats only about as acceptable as a corrupt, sex-offending, felon. Democrats are the ballgame because Trump may be even worse.

Republicans have a problem. They are stuck with Trump and with the deep stain that Trump has put onto their party. Sentor Lindsey Graham (R. SC) predicted the future in 2016. He said Trump campaigns "on xenophobia, race-baiting, religious bigotry – that cannot be Republican conservatism.” Trump will kill the Republican Party, he said, and "we'll deserve it."  Eventually Republican politicians and voters will try to wash their history and say that they had always opposed Trump. That will take a while.

Good news for Democrats, though. Democrats can fix what is wrong and do so promptly. As I began writing yesterday: 

---  Stop defending and minimizing a deeply flawed immigration policy that allowed nine million unregulated people to enter the country in indefinite legal limbo. But isn't immigration just a "Republican talking point," as the commenter said. Yes. It is a talking point because the vast majority of Americans, including people of Hispanic and Asian heritage, found Biden's approach objectionable. 

---  Stop defending the national Democratic Party. The DNC connived with the Biden campaign to forbid a competitive Democratic primary for president in 2024. They cosseted Biden and hid him from the public. That approach denied new spokespeople -- Klobuchar, Shapiro, Booker, Newsom and a dozen others -- a chance to reshape the Democratic message into a party of change, not one of geriatric status quo helplessness. Democratic candidates for federal office should speak the simple truth, that they are the Democratic Party, and they disown the national DNC. Democrats think it. Why not say it?

---  Stop defending the ACA and the status quo in healthcare as anything other than a work in progress toward something new and better. The current system is indefensible. It is massively expensive, it leaves some Americans without healthcare, and its insurance premiums are burdensome. It makes billionaires out of people who operate companies whose profits come from denying claims. The fact that some Americans consider Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, a folk hero, is both appalling and a heads up. It is politically safe to move on from Obamacare. Present a Medicare for All proposal and then sell it as better and cheaper.

---  Stop pushing identity essentialism. Trump has given Democrats an opportunity. Trump demonstrates that certain people -- his friends, people who pay him financial tribute, even criminals who act on his behalf -- get special treatment. People hate that, so let that be the Trump and Republican brand. The crony brand.  Americans like the idea of equality and fairness and everyone getting what they deserve by merit. Democrats bought into the idea that our country was so flawed in its history that the people and institutions that play the role of referees and gatekeepers need to evaluate everyone against a measure of presumed former disadvantage, and give them preference. It turns out that the vast majority of Americans think that is unfair, even people who are potentially the beneficiaries of it. Besides, everyone knows someone whose potential disadvantage is greater than theirs, so everyone is suspicious that a system of favoritism disadvantages them. Stop supporting identity favoritism. Now playing favorites is Trump's deal.

I expect some readers to disagree. I am suggesting that Democrats break free of group-think policy ruts. Some people will cling to familiar positions and consider change to be "backsliding" or compromising with the devil, or MAGA. No. it is getting real. It is getting back in sync with Americans.

It is time for a new generation of Democratic leaders and spokespeople to redefine what it means to be a "good Democrat."  Democrats are supposedly the party of "progress." Progress means change, change that will lead to electoral victories.

Meanwhile Republicans will be stuck trying to wash out the stain of having tolerated Trump. It will take time and it won't be easy.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Can a Democrat ever win in a rural congressional district like Oregon's 2nd?

 Yes, Democrats can win in rural districts, like Oregon's Second Congressional District. 

But they must fix the parts of the Democratic brand that voters hate.

Yesterday I posted about a joint appearance by four Democratic candidates for Congress. I said I thought they all sounded alike, supporting standard-issue Democratic policy, saying things that would sound pretty normal for a national Democrat hoping to represent Portland, Berkeley, or Boston. I don't doubt that the candidates think that is unfair and wrong -- sorry -- but that is how it seemed to me.

Candidates for Congress from yesterday's post

I concluded yesterday's post with what I had hoped to hear:

There may be room for a red-district Democrat to surprise voters with a shift in the policies that reshape the Democratic brand. In a democracy there is no shame in supporting things that are popular, even if it changes the orthodoxy of a party brand.

The simple reality is that the Democratic brand is toxic in much of rural America. Understand that. Absorb that thought.

Rural area of my farm at Table Rock.  It gets even redder in more rural areas.

 Democrats are doomed to lose the Senate, and usually the Electoral College, if they are not competitive in rural areas. The Democrat does not need to become MAGA-lite, or become Trumpy, or become dog-whistle-racist. The Democrat does not need to start talking about bipartisanship or "crossing the aisle." They don't need to brand themselves as "purple."

In fact, sounding like a mushy compromiser makes things worse by communicating that the Democrat has no principles. At least in Oregon's Second District, the incumbent, Cliff Bentz, is a genuine, reliable toady for whatever Trump wants, even when it hurts his district. He is a bad U.S. representative, but he is rock-solid loyal to his master.

The Democrat needs to position herself as a reform Democrat. Democrats need reform so they can fix their brand. A reform Democrat is a real Democrat, one willing to face the truth about the party and risk being criticized for doing so. (Notice that Trump did exactly that with the GOP, daring to criticize the Bush dynasty in 2015.)  

Start with the immigration issue. Declare that Biden and Democrats messed up badly on immigration. Say it clearly. Admit that Democrats failed to enforce the laws and keep good public order and thus let immigration get out of hand. The Biden administration, with the tacit consent of Democrats in national office, allowed mass uncontrolled immigration by people who gamed the "amnesty" claim, having learned that the U.S. would allow them to remain in the country for years, maybe decades. People wanting to come here took the hint and came, about three million a year of them, a giant spike in immigration numbers. 

New York Times chart and headline

Fox image of Lukeville AZ border crossing, December 27, 2023

The system choked on the uncontrolled, un-assimilated masses of people here without resolved legal status. White nativist racists did not like this; that is a given. But neither did millions of other people, including fellow Hispanics and fellow Asians, citizen-voters who had to deal with the chaos. Democrats failed to act because they heard Trump's race-based dog whistles, and thought that represented the real animus for the public's discontent. Democrats reject racism, so they saw immigration as a matter of racism, not public order. A balance-tipping number of people felt that Democrats misunderstood them and insulted them by calling them racist. They wanted good order. They wanted laws obeyed.

There is something clarifying and cleansing about confession. Tell the simple truth: Democrats were wrong. That goes a long way toward a "reset" of a flawed brand. 

The candidate might say what President Obama said: that the laws should be enforced, people here illegally must go home and apply for entry. In a context of respect for the law, people with DOCA status may be able to stay lawfully, but there will be deportations, as there were while Obama was president. Democrats will fail with the public until they accept that. 

Having frankly endorsed a policy of law-abiding order, the candidate can then criticize Trump's police-state rough-justice policing strategy. Trump's tactics give a Democrat an opportunity to make immigration a winning issue.  

The Democratic brand will change when there are spokespeople and candidates advocating change, not mushy excuses for a failed status quo. The candidate should expect criticism from fellow Democrats. "You sound like Trump!!!" The Democratic candidate should welcome that criticism. It means people are paying attention. No need to say you are moderating or compromising, because you are not. You are re-defining good policy for good Democrats. You are not defending the indefensible; you are not stuck in a policy rut. Tell the critic who says you sound like Trump: 

No, I sound like a Democrat who wants our immigration system to work. We can do this the right way or we can do this Trump's way. Trump uses police state tactics. Trump attacks our Second Amendment rights. I sound like a real Democrat, because real Democrats and real Americans want our laws obeyed.

That is one issue.There are others. Reform is an opportunity to rethink what is not working. Policies that are so unpopular that the public chooses Donald Trump as the alternative are a sign that something must change.

The agents of change are the candidates for public office who proudly say they are Democrats and that they voice new defensible and popular policies. They can win the future because they shape it.

Tomorrow, another issue:  How to handle Obamacare.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Big turnout to see Democratic candidates for Oregon's Second Congressional District

"What's tomorrow's lede in your blog?"
          Asked of me by Democratic State Senator Jeff Golden

"The big story is that Democrats are super-energized. These candidates will have a hard time, but Democrats are going to have a good year."

          My response

Four Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress spoke to about 400 voters in a Sunday afternoon joint appearance at a Medford school auditorium.

The turnout was high. This comes on top of a recent town hall by U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D. OR) that filled up the Ashland High School gymnasium. People were turned away. President Trump is motivating Democrats.

Conventional thinking would be that these candidates face a near-hopeless challenge. Oregon's Second Congressional District concentrates the state's most-Republican areas into one of Oregon's six districts, one that includes Medford. The Republican incumbent, Cliff Bentz, won election by a 64-33 margin in 2024. He won 68-32 in 2022.

The audience seemed undaunted and enthusiastic. The candidates did as well. Each one sounded confident and forthright, with a single story: Bentz is a Trump toady, and Bentz's Trump-pleasing votes hurt Second District citizens.

From left to right in this photo:

Patty Snow, 62, an Ashland businesswoman, who called herself "a purple Democrat." She said she wanted to focus on four things: health, the environment, the economy, and our rights as Americans.

Snow

Rebecca Mueller, 45, from Medford, who introduced herself as "a rural pediatrician, an advocate, and a mother." She said she wanted to give the unaffiliated voters a reason to vote Democratic.

Mueller

Dawn Rasmussen, 58, from Wasco County, who began by saying Oregonians were being crushed by rising costs, but that she was not "a partisan warrior" because affordability is an Oregon issue, not a Democratic one.

Rasmussen

Mary Doyle, 57, a Bend-area educator, who said she wanted to "get corruption out of politics," which requires a new tax policy that forces billionaires to pay higher taxes, a constitutional amendment to end corporate financing of campaigns, and ridding Congress of career politicians.

Doyle

All four candidates are ready for prime time. All were articulate and fluent. Their presentation skills are as solid as any incumbent one sees on television. They each spoke with better clarity and confidence than Cliff Bentz, whom I have seen live in public perhaps eight times.

They are good candidates, but I have impressions to share:

 ---   I thought they all sounded alike. All condemn Trump. All say they want to reach out to a wider net beyond Democrats. All have essentially the same set of policy ideas that Democrats in very blue polities favor. On every issue dear to the Democratic faithful, including issues that make the Democratic brand unpopular in red areas like the Second District, they sound to me like a politician hoping to win votes in Portland, Berkeley, or Boston. They sound like Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats, with maybe a tiny hint of the moderation of a Pete Buttigieg. They are all MSNOW-compliant.

---   I thought the four candidates were too darned gracious. They congratulate and support one another. This approach means, however, that distinctions between them are essentially invisible. One does not need to be nasty to do some comparing and contrasting. The result is that a person attending the event -- as I did -- wondering which of the four stood above the others and could give Bentz some real general election competition, came away without a chosen candidate. A corollary of that graciousness is that they never made a hard compare-and-contrast case against Bentz, tying Bentz to the least popular things Trump does. 

These candidates have an opportunity in the 2026 election to turn this district from safe-Republican into a competitive one. MAGA is net-popular in this district, but on issues like the right to carry guns without being killed by federal police, on Greenland, on Epstein, on tariffs, on inflation, on damage to wheat exports, on the rough treatment by immigration enforcement agents, there is an opportunity for Democrats. If it were a competitive seat, even an incumbent Republican would feel some pressure to be an independent voice of restraint against the least popular Trump policies.

There may be room for a red-district Democrat to surprise voters with a shift in the policies that reshape the Democratic brand. In a democracy there is no shame in supporting things that are popular, even if it changes the orthodoxy of a party brand. I had hoped to hear it. 

But I need to be realistic about popularity: A majority of Democratic primary voters may not want to hear it in a Democratic primary, and it was a Democratic primary crowd.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Easy Sunday: Two short YouTube videos.

A British girl is angry about the price for two ice cream cones -- nine quid! -- and he doesn't even accept cash as payment. Bloody hell!

Click. Fifteen seconds

And for Super Bowl Sunday, a short Pepsi ad. The Coke polar bear, burdened by his hidden preference for Pepsi, seeks psychiatric help, finally comes clean, and finds joy with his lover amid a cheering crowd.

Click: 35 seconds

It isn't all politics all the time. If it were, I would go crazy.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Canada is pulling away from us. Canadians are as well.

     "The big picture is that the U.S. government is choosing to isolate itself through its transactional and exploitative approach to trade and its race towards authoritarianism. The rest of the world is turning away and making other arrangements."
          Sandford Borins

I am trying to make sense of U.S.-Canadian relationship under Trump by likening it to a relationship breakup. The U.S. is acting like an entitled and abusive boyfriend, the guy with the big muscles, the big house, and more money than everyone else. He is convinced he has a right to be entitled. 

The rest of the world thinks the U.S. is acting like a jerk. They are adjusting to the new reality. Canada is doing what any prudent girlfriend of an entitled jerk would do: try to protect herself and begin making new friends. Mark Carney is trying to be politic about the pull-away, saying nice things to Trump as Canada withdraws.

Canada acts as an institution under a leader, Mark Carney, who acknowledged that a breakup was underway. Canada is made up of citizens. Canadian citizens make their own decisions on how to relate to the changes going on in their southern neighbor.

Sandford Borins is Canadian. He is a college classmate. He has written guest posts here explaining Canada. Today he shares how he personally feels. Sandy is Professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto.  He has his own website, https://sandfordborins.com, where this post appeared earlier this week.

Borins, diplomas behind him, wearing a 50th college reunion tee shirt

Guest Post by Sandford Borins

East Berlin 1983, Okay; Boston 2026, Not Okay? 

I usually don’t continue to think about a blog I have posted, but I have been thinking about my previous one, in which I concluded I would boycott travel to the U.S.  Part of the impetus was recent events. The day after I posted, Trump called off his threats of invading Greenland and imposing tariffs on the European nations that sent a military presence there. On the other hand, Prime Minister Carney’s high-profile speech at Davos has evoked anger towards Canada from the Trump Administration.

I was also thinking of instances in the past when I visited countries whose governments were widely held in ill-repute and even were the target of boycott movements. As my title asks, were my choices then consistent with my choice now?

Personal Diplomacy in Undemocratic Countries

In my mid-thirties, I visited three countries with questionable governments. I went to South Africa in 1984, invited by a Canadian colleague who was working for a government-supported transportation research agency. I was curious about the apartheid regime. As discussed in a previous post, I stayed a month, travelled widely, and spoke to a wide range of people. I left disgusted by the regime and held out little hope for change. If someone then had predicted a peaceful transition to majority rule within a decade, I would have told them they were delusional.

In Germany for a conference in 1983, I visited a friend in West Berlin for a weekend. On Sunday, he took me through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. The starkest contrast was between streets and parks full of people enjoying themselves on Saturday in West Berlin and the deserted streets, squares, and plazas (especially Potsdamer Platz) in East Berlin. In many other ways, it was clear this was a police state, and one day there was more than enough for me.

I went to the People’s Republic of China in 1984 and again in 1986. The Canadian International Development Agency sponsored a partnership program between Canadian and Chinese management schools, and I was the guest of Nankai University in Tianjin. The students were inexperienced with free market institutions, but eager to learn. When I visited in November 1984 it was unseasonably cold. Here is a photo of me teaching in a chilly classroom.

And here I am in Tienanmen Square.

Reflecting on my decision to visit these three countries, despite my opposition to their governments’ policies, I was trying to learn from their people, share with them my life experience as a Canadian and, when possible, my expertise in management and economics.

Choosing to Boycott the U.S.

Prime Minister Carney’s Davos speech was a closely reasoned analysis of the impact, particularly on middle powers, of a sea-change in international relations characterized by the desire of hegemonic nations ruthlessly to monetize and exploit their advantages. Carney did not refer to the U.S. explicitly, but he was referring to any and all regional hegemonic powers. I noticed, though few commentators mentioned it, that Carney’s speech drew on economic concepts such as public goods, economies of scale, and game theory.

The reaction to Carney’s speech and Canada’s sectoral trade agreement with China by Trump and Bessent (apparently his point person for Canada) proved Carney’s point: threats of economic disruption (100 percent tariffs if Canada negotiates a wider agreement with China) and interference to support the “leave” side in a likely Alberta referendum on separation, not to mention name-calling (ingrate and “Governor”). This is not the behaviour of an ally or a partner. The National Security Strategy provides the bigger picture: dominance of the western hemisphere enforced with an iron fist.

If this isn’t enough to justify a Canadian travel boycott of the U.S., add to the picture the Trump Administration’s attack on the civil liberties of citizens and non-citizens who are in the U.S. As I’ve discussed in the previous blog, my criticism of the Trump Administration, if noticed by a BCP agent, would be sufficient grounds to prevent me from entering the U.S. I do not intend to travel to the U.S. during the Trump Administration. The 55^th reunion for my class at Harvard is in June, and I know I will regret missing it.

The U.S. Choosing Isolation

The big picture is that the U.S. government is choosing to isolate itself through its transactional and exploitative approach to trade and its race towards authoritarianism. The rest of the world is turning away and making other arrangements. Hence the recent trade deal between the E.U. and India, and the set of trade deals Canada is pursuing, of which the China deal is the first. A travel boycott is a personal replication of a national policy.

I hope the result of this collective action, both by nations and individuals, is that Americans will realize that, under Trump, their nation and society are becoming isolated and weaker. I hope they will remember that their alliances and soft power were a source of strength. And I hope they will remember this when choosing Trump’s successor in 2028.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]