I second Stephen McErlain's comments. Also, very interesting to read about the start of Bulwark. I was introduced to many of your contributors through Nicole Wallace's TV program - people that I would have ordinarily missed. I was especially touched by your comments on forgetting past differences and remaining focused on the fight for democracy. It is WWII time reframed without our little red wagons full of scrap metal and folded newspapers and card board. I adore the insightfulness of James Carville.
I’m a big fan of the Bulwark, but I can’t let Bill’s obiter dicta about Canada pass without comment. Americans, who speculate on eventual union with Canada typically demonstrate ignorance about Canada’s political arrangements and how they would affect any discussion about political union,, or at a minimum, a failure to think through what would actually be involved in any such discussions.
First, and most importantly, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories would insist on full statehood as a minimum condition of any union. This would raise several political problems, including the fact that the populations of the three territories (not to mention the province of Prince Edward Island) are so small that they make sparsely populated states like Montana look like southern California by comparison. But most importantly, from a US point of view, despite the occasional conservative leanings of almost all Canadian provinces, the general political culture of the country is liberal enough that 8 of the 10 provinces and all of the territories would lean reliably Democratic. Thus, assuming all provinces and territories were granted full statehood, the political makeup of the US Senate would be drastically altered by Canadian union, probably making Democratic control of the Senate a certainty for decades to come. Can anyone really imagine any red state agreeing to an arrangement that would lead to such an outcome?
Of course I haven’t mentioned the real elephant in the room, which would be the insistence on official bilingualism by Quebec, and maybe also Manitoba and Ontario. It is simply beyond the realm of conceivability that a workable coalition could be built in the present-day United States to permit French to be an official language anywhere in the country, let alone nationwide.
(This assumes that Quebec would have the slightest interest in union with the US in the first place, which is highly unlikely given that the overriding goal of the entire political class in Quebec is the protection of the French language and culture. The far more likely outcome of any discussions of union between the US and Canada would be the realization of the longtime dream of many Quebec nationalists, namely the establishment of Quebec as an independent state. I won’t comment on whether that would be a good or bad thing, but it should simply be noted that the US would probably be quite leery of any process that led to the establishment of a brand-new state in North America the international loyalties of which might be unpredictable; remember former premier Jacques Parizeau’s confidence that the first thing that would happen after a successful independence referendum would be France’s recognition of Quebec sovereignty.)
Then there’s Canada‘s ongoing (if often halfhearted) commitment to establishing much greater political autonomy for First Nations. I don’t know enough about how the US has dealt with such issues, but my guess is that the US approach has been different enough that trying to coordinate the two approaches in a political union would be extremely difficult.
All of which to say that while it’s amusing to speculate about all this, it’s more likely that the US itself will split into two or three quasi-autonomous nations before the currently existing US is ever in a position to think contemplate union with Canada.
Indeed! Bill Kristol knows enough history -- including that of our disastrous attempts to absorb Canada in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries -- for me to assume that this was an attempt at a joke. If not, I think that you've provided enough background to ensure that it's a one-off, at least for the next few months.
I remember when Michael Kinsley wrote a whole column on this theme back in the '80s. He did it knowing full well how outraged we all get whenever anyone suggests it. Best to take it as a joke probably, but in the present overheated environment, I thought it might be useful to spell out what would (most likely) actually happen.
One would really think that being our most reliable ally and biggest trading partner would be sufficient to discourage off-the-cuff insults, but apparently not. I hope that we can do better. 🤝🏻
Like Allister, I took it as more tongue-in-cheek than an insult. I'm sure Bill would agree that union with the US would not look particularly attractive to any other country at the present historical moment.
summing up this week, all of a sudden its „i forgive haley everything“ from all corners.
why? i get it, she now is personally offended, and allies are allies.
but, like sununu still does, she w i l l endorse trump as the lesser evil. after all, what is chaos vs the end of the world? (the biden harris body switch)
what is the rationale for her not endorsing trump when sununu to this day says he will?
Trump was using the VP office like someone using yarn to play with a cat except Kitty Ron got bored and left the room. Trump would never pick a man/woman like DeSantis because I don't think DeSantis would be the lap dog that Trump wants. From what I've seen of Tim Scott, I think he would be the one.
THE DUMB Santis May go & hide. this will do no good !. you must remember that there is --DUMB---DUMBER----DUMBEST-----PICK ONE this will answer what the public thinks about that-------A.***HOLE----ENOUGH SAID?, d. j. "trump"the HUMP !is no Vlad Putin (the Killer of his foes) and the other is and always will be a" LAP DOG" to the Killer Putin. d' j. "trump" the HUMP ! has NO BALLS--------and is a HUMP-------Putins LAP DOG and a very poor joke of a man------JUST NO BALLS AT ALL----------COWARD!!, police will not be any help to him--------TOUGH LUCK-------A***HOLE, or should I say "LAP DOG"?-----same to me.
Dear Mr. Parsons, I'd love to read your comments but I'm old now and all the CAPITAL LETTERS and ------, --------, and ------- are distracting and confusing.
Bill. I used to get so riled up with your opinions about “big government” and other expressed opinions in the Weekly Standard. Now you are a hero of sorts. Those discussions and disagreements were exactly that—divergent positions that could be expressed in a forum of civil discussion. Those days are long gone. Your work and that of all those at the Bulwark, have helped me to inform and even sway many Republicans who will no longer mechanically pull the lever along party lines. In that way, your message resonates with importance more that the “lectures” of liberals like me. Thank you and keep it up. I think we can make a difference and get me back to yelling at The NY Times regarding your positions.
My analogy of what our political arguments have devolved into (mostly by the MAGAs) is this:
We no longer argue whether or not the water glass is half full...we argue about whether the glass was made in China, the water is full of mind controlling nanobots... all being funded by George Soros
"Republicans running the inquiry quietly deleted references to Smirnov from interview request letters in their probe while insisting nothing has changed about their case."
Of course "nothing has changed about their case." They had no evidence before Smirnov came along and they still have none. Same old, same old. Or, in math-speak: If you subtract zero from zero you have zero.
Bill, writing from Canada. I have predicted and feared a pending annexation of Canada by a Trump Presidency. If aluminum prices are considered by Trump to be a matter of “national security” what of your need for water, essential minerals, electric etc. What of the perceived or real threat from northern border illegal immigrants, Canada’s failure to contribute to NATO to the extent agreed.
Surely if desired, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny can be re-interpreted, if necessary, to justify invasion/annexation.
To a very large degree we in Canada have made our own bed in this regard but to join the United States willingly is highly unlikely even though perhaps inevitable one way or another. We are a nation of 40 million with an economy smaller than California’s and while we are America’s largest trading partner we simply don’t have and can’t spend anywhere near the amount that would be required to establish a credible military. We remain beholden.
FYI, Canada is no longer the US's largest trading partner, China is. We're #2 and have been for a while now.
As to the US annexing or invading us, we can see how such actions have worked out for Russia with regards to Ukraine. And while Canada is a sovereign state, we are also a Constitutional monarchy and remain part of the British commonwealth. Not to mention a Nato member. These things would complicate any aggression against us the US might entertain. And the simple fact is, the vast majority of us have no desire whatsoever to become Americans. Despite America's obvious military superiority and population size, Canadians are a pretty tough lot. It's not as if we would just roll over and cower before America's might.
Whatever happens in South Carolina's balloting tomorrow, I hope Ambassador Haley remains in the campaign. Her campaign is not about polls or simply gaining power for power's sake to seek retribution on critics like that of the frontrunner. It is about principle. It is vital that a voice of traditional Republican values be heard. That someone shares the strong belief in freedom exemplified by the public service and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. That someone articulates the most important values of the Republican Party and the policies that reinforce those values, including the need to stand by our allies and support freedom for the Ukraine;. For too long, the Republican Party has been torn asunder by a chaos candidate and his chaos policies that fail to uplift our country but to divide it. That candidate -- the frontrunner -- must not define the GOP or our country going forward into the future
Bill, I am thinking all of us w small "l" and small "c" and working for democracy are going to form a 3rd party of middle of the roaders leaning slightly left and slightly right...we will find common ground to save our democracy and make progress in our country...we need to CRUSH maga...not defeat but CRUSH...they have been here for a long time but kind of stayed under their rocks...where they BELONG...I think I found the bulwark seeing Charlie ON the TV...probably MSNBC and have watched you for years and admired your political acumen...but did not always exactly LIKE you...well , I am a big fan of yours now..and James Carville and all of us who will pull together...
Sen. Sinema ran as one thing - a moderate Democrat, but legislated as a one woman team . Even if you agreed with her about most things , there was shock and surprise at the fact she did not support the Dems legislative priorities , many of which are very middle of the road , at all . HE r links to finance goals gave an appearance (there was no evidence nor accusation of corruption ) that she had "sold out" . If she sold out , I'm not sure what would have gotten , but that is another conspiracy theory with no proof that we should all reject - no evidence , not now, not ever . Time may prove me wrong , but no evidence at all .
She seems or seemed very in love with her "exceptional self" -- everything from distinctive fashion statement most days to avoiding the press and constituents to pretty much never signing on to a party-brokered compromise with other Dems . .I realize when given the chance she often brokered her own compromises with Republicans , as an individual not a member of a movement . None of these things are bad-- its not bad to choose cool clothes , its not bad to talk to Rs. Bipartisanship is not bad , being an independent is not bad , but that is not how she presented herself when she ran for office .
In addition to not being on the Dem's team , it didn't appear she was on her constituents team . If you want to be elected you have to be a leader -- not someone with a lot of ideas and plans personally that may or may not connect to those who would need to vote for her . I think she expected to get support without courting or even communicating with voters . The fact she started junketing this last year suggests she will not run again .
She's ostensibly running as an independent. And she won't win. She's burnt toast at this point, and I, for one, will be happy to see her gone. Just as long as Kari Lake doesn't win. I doubt she will. But you never know, especially with a 3-way split that involves a former Dem who is the current seat holder.
I'm sure that there are some like that, but do you really think it's the basis of a major movement? I think it's the antipathy to Ds and a disdain for "l".
I second Stephen McErlain's comments. Also, very interesting to read about the start of Bulwark. I was introduced to many of your contributors through Nicole Wallace's TV program - people that I would have ordinarily missed. I was especially touched by your comments on forgetting past differences and remaining focused on the fight for democracy. It is WWII time reframed without our little red wagons full of scrap metal and folded newspapers and card board. I adore the insightfulness of James Carville.
I’m a big fan of the Bulwark, but I can’t let Bill’s obiter dicta about Canada pass without comment. Americans, who speculate on eventual union with Canada typically demonstrate ignorance about Canada’s political arrangements and how they would affect any discussion about political union,, or at a minimum, a failure to think through what would actually be involved in any such discussions.
First, and most importantly, each of Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories would insist on full statehood as a minimum condition of any union. This would raise several political problems, including the fact that the populations of the three territories (not to mention the province of Prince Edward Island) are so small that they make sparsely populated states like Montana look like southern California by comparison. But most importantly, from a US point of view, despite the occasional conservative leanings of almost all Canadian provinces, the general political culture of the country is liberal enough that 8 of the 10 provinces and all of the territories would lean reliably Democratic. Thus, assuming all provinces and territories were granted full statehood, the political makeup of the US Senate would be drastically altered by Canadian union, probably making Democratic control of the Senate a certainty for decades to come. Can anyone really imagine any red state agreeing to an arrangement that would lead to such an outcome?
Of course I haven’t mentioned the real elephant in the room, which would be the insistence on official bilingualism by Quebec, and maybe also Manitoba and Ontario. It is simply beyond the realm of conceivability that a workable coalition could be built in the present-day United States to permit French to be an official language anywhere in the country, let alone nationwide.
(This assumes that Quebec would have the slightest interest in union with the US in the first place, which is highly unlikely given that the overriding goal of the entire political class in Quebec is the protection of the French language and culture. The far more likely outcome of any discussions of union between the US and Canada would be the realization of the longtime dream of many Quebec nationalists, namely the establishment of Quebec as an independent state. I won’t comment on whether that would be a good or bad thing, but it should simply be noted that the US would probably be quite leery of any process that led to the establishment of a brand-new state in North America the international loyalties of which might be unpredictable; remember former premier Jacques Parizeau’s confidence that the first thing that would happen after a successful independence referendum would be France’s recognition of Quebec sovereignty.)
Then there’s Canada‘s ongoing (if often halfhearted) commitment to establishing much greater political autonomy for First Nations. I don’t know enough about how the US has dealt with such issues, but my guess is that the US approach has been different enough that trying to coordinate the two approaches in a political union would be extremely difficult.
All of which to say that while it’s amusing to speculate about all this, it’s more likely that the US itself will split into two or three quasi-autonomous nations before the currently existing US is ever in a position to think contemplate union with Canada.
Indeed! Bill Kristol knows enough history -- including that of our disastrous attempts to absorb Canada in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries -- for me to assume that this was an attempt at a joke. If not, I think that you've provided enough background to ensure that it's a one-off, at least for the next few months.
I think he was being tongue in cheek, but only half joking. As a Canadian, I wasn't amused.
I remember when Michael Kinsley wrote a whole column on this theme back in the '80s. He did it knowing full well how outraged we all get whenever anyone suggests it. Best to take it as a joke probably, but in the present overheated environment, I thought it might be useful to spell out what would (most likely) actually happen.
One would really think that being our most reliable ally and biggest trading partner would be sufficient to discourage off-the-cuff insults, but apparently not. I hope that we can do better. 🤝🏻
Like Allister, I took it as more tongue-in-cheek than an insult. I'm sure Bill would agree that union with the US would not look particularly attractive to any other country at the present historical moment.
May the coalition of Bill Kristol, James Carville, The Bulwark staff, and Democracy prevail!
I’m glad to have all of you on board in the fight for democracy. We are all better off for working together.
It seems that the happy few keep getting fewer.
summing up this week, all of a sudden its „i forgive haley everything“ from all corners.
why? i get it, she now is personally offended, and allies are allies.
but, like sununu still does, she w i l l endorse trump as the lesser evil. after all, what is chaos vs the end of the world? (the biden harris body switch)
what is the rationale for her not endorsing trump when sununu to this day says he will?
Trump was using the VP office like someone using yarn to play with a cat except Kitty Ron got bored and left the room. Trump would never pick a man/woman like DeSantis because I don't think DeSantis would be the lap dog that Trump wants. From what I've seen of Tim Scott, I think he would be the one.
DeSantis better get his police protection increased if Trump wins next election! His days may be numbered?
THE DUMB Santis May go & hide. this will do no good !. you must remember that there is --DUMB---DUMBER----DUMBEST-----PICK ONE this will answer what the public thinks about that-------A.***HOLE----ENOUGH SAID?, d. j. "trump"the HUMP !is no Vlad Putin (the Killer of his foes) and the other is and always will be a" LAP DOG" to the Killer Putin. d' j. "trump" the HUMP ! has NO BALLS--------and is a HUMP-------Putins LAP DOG and a very poor joke of a man------JUST NO BALLS AT ALL----------COWARD!!, police will not be any help to him--------TOUGH LUCK-------A***HOLE, or should I say "LAP DOG"?-----same to me.
'
Dear Mr. Parsons, I'd love to read your comments but I'm old now and all the CAPITAL LETTERS and ------, --------, and ------- are distracting and confusing.
All the best,
Carolyn Phipps
Bill. I used to get so riled up with your opinions about “big government” and other expressed opinions in the Weekly Standard. Now you are a hero of sorts. Those discussions and disagreements were exactly that—divergent positions that could be expressed in a forum of civil discussion. Those days are long gone. Your work and that of all those at the Bulwark, have helped me to inform and even sway many Republicans who will no longer mechanically pull the lever along party lines. In that way, your message resonates with importance more that the “lectures” of liberals like me. Thank you and keep it up. I think we can make a difference and get me back to yelling at The NY Times regarding your positions.
My analogy of what our political arguments have devolved into (mostly by the MAGAs) is this:
We no longer argue whether or not the water glass is half full...we argue about whether the glass was made in China, the water is full of mind controlling nanobots... all being funded by George Soros
Like Soros is Lord Voldemort. Crazy.
"Republicans running the inquiry quietly deleted references to Smirnov from interview request letters in their probe while insisting nothing has changed about their case."
Of course "nothing has changed about their case." They had no evidence before Smirnov came along and they still have none. Same old, same old. Or, in math-speak: If you subtract zero from zero you have zero.
Bill, writing from Canada. I have predicted and feared a pending annexation of Canada by a Trump Presidency. If aluminum prices are considered by Trump to be a matter of “national security” what of your need for water, essential minerals, electric etc. What of the perceived or real threat from northern border illegal immigrants, Canada’s failure to contribute to NATO to the extent agreed.
Surely if desired, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny can be re-interpreted, if necessary, to justify invasion/annexation.
To a very large degree we in Canada have made our own bed in this regard but to join the United States willingly is highly unlikely even though perhaps inevitable one way or another. We are a nation of 40 million with an economy smaller than California’s and while we are America’s largest trading partner we simply don’t have and can’t spend anywhere near the amount that would be required to establish a credible military. We remain beholden.
Ron Richards
Ottawa, Canada
FYI, Canada is no longer the US's largest trading partner, China is. We're #2 and have been for a while now.
As to the US annexing or invading us, we can see how such actions have worked out for Russia with regards to Ukraine. And while Canada is a sovereign state, we are also a Constitutional monarchy and remain part of the British commonwealth. Not to mention a Nato member. These things would complicate any aggression against us the US might entertain. And the simple fact is, the vast majority of us have no desire whatsoever to become Americans. Despite America's obvious military superiority and population size, Canadians are a pretty tough lot. It's not as if we would just roll over and cower before America's might.
In any event, it's not gonna happen.
Canuckistan will always be in the hearts of America.
I’m furious that it is still possible to sanction Russia. We should have hit them with every possible sanction long ago.
Whatever happens in South Carolina's balloting tomorrow, I hope Ambassador Haley remains in the campaign. Her campaign is not about polls or simply gaining power for power's sake to seek retribution on critics like that of the frontrunner. It is about principle. It is vital that a voice of traditional Republican values be heard. That someone shares the strong belief in freedom exemplified by the public service and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. That someone articulates the most important values of the Republican Party and the policies that reinforce those values, including the need to stand by our allies and support freedom for the Ukraine;. For too long, the Republican Party has been torn asunder by a chaos candidate and his chaos policies that fail to uplift our country but to divide it. That candidate -- the frontrunner -- must not define the GOP or our country going forward into the future
Bill, I am thinking all of us w small "l" and small "c" and working for democracy are going to form a 3rd party of middle of the roaders leaning slightly left and slightly right...we will find common ground to save our democracy and make progress in our country...we need to CRUSH maga...not defeat but CRUSH...they have been here for a long time but kind of stayed under their rocks...where they BELONG...I think I found the bulwark seeing Charlie ON the TV...probably MSNBC and have watched you for years and admired your political acumen...but did not always exactly LIKE you...well , I am a big fan of yours now..and James Carville and all of us who will pull together...
Sen. Sinema ran as one thing - a moderate Democrat, but legislated as a one woman team . Even if you agreed with her about most things , there was shock and surprise at the fact she did not support the Dems legislative priorities , many of which are very middle of the road , at all . HE r links to finance goals gave an appearance (there was no evidence nor accusation of corruption ) that she had "sold out" . If she sold out , I'm not sure what would have gotten , but that is another conspiracy theory with no proof that we should all reject - no evidence , not now, not ever . Time may prove me wrong , but no evidence at all .
She seems or seemed very in love with her "exceptional self" -- everything from distinctive fashion statement most days to avoiding the press and constituents to pretty much never signing on to a party-brokered compromise with other Dems . .I realize when given the chance she often brokered her own compromises with Republicans , as an individual not a member of a movement . None of these things are bad-- its not bad to choose cool clothes , its not bad to talk to Rs. Bipartisanship is not bad , being an independent is not bad , but that is not how she presented herself when she ran for office .
In addition to not being on the Dem's team , it didn't appear she was on her constituents team . If you want to be elected you have to be a leader -- not someone with a lot of ideas and plans personally that may or may not connect to those who would need to vote for her . I think she expected to get support without courting or even communicating with voters . The fact she started junketing this last year suggests she will not run again .
She's ostensibly running as an independent. And she won't win. She's burnt toast at this point, and I, for one, will be happy to see her gone. Just as long as Kari Lake doesn't win. I doubt she will. But you never know, especially with a 3-way split that involves a former Dem who is the current seat holder.
The "need for chaos" stuff that came out recently is one of the most interesting pieces of research I've read in a long time. Well worth it.
I'm sure that there are some like that, but do you really think it's the basis of a major movement? I think it's the antipathy to Ds and a disdain for "l".
I think it's the energy that can be channeled by a disciplined movement.
Thank you Bill. Really enjoyed this post today.