U.S. politics

Who will win ... and when? ��TV political scientist unpacks a nail-biting U.S. election

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:09:46 +0000

Who will win ... and when? ��TV political scientist unpacks a nail-biting U.S. election

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 11/04/2020 - 13:09

Cutline

Ballots are counted and verified in Denver, Colo on Nov. 3. As of midday Nov. 4, the winner of the 2020 U.S. presidential election had yet to be decided (photo by Chet Strange/AFP via Getty Images)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

Global Lens

Global

��TV Scarborough

U.S. politics

United States

While the outcome of the U.S. presidential election remains unclear, the results so far suggest a shift in the political geography of the United States and raise questions about the future direction of both major parties.

That’s according to Ryan Hurl, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough who says that, from his perspective as scholar, the unexpectedly close election has already given him plenty to study.

After watching the results trickle in until midnight, Hurl spoke to ��TV News Wednesday morning about when to expect a definitive result, whether the Supreme Court will become involved and what the nail-biting contest means in general for each party and the country.

When do you think we will know who won?

That's a difficult question. We should know relatively soon if there is an outcome sort of beyond the bounds of controversy. I'm thinking that maybe by Friday.

Here's the thing with American elections and election law. Not only is the law different in many cases from state to state, but the administrative capacities differ and people might make very different choices about the way in which votes are being counted.

There can be errors and sometimes unusual things can happen. Sometimes people may just screw up. They weren't prepared for dealing with the number of mail-in ballots and so forth. I think it would have been nice if there could have been a calm discussion about this prior to the election because if things are looking very tight and things drag on, I think unfortunately people will start thinking there are shenanigans going on when it's just a very difficult problem.

When invariably some mistakes are found – I mean we're dealing with a pretty high number of states that can be very close – this will be interpreted in the least charitable way possible. It could get difficult, but we will see.

What I'm looking ahead to now is whether we will have a Florida 2000-type of situation where there is a crucial state, or set of crucial states, where the decision is being made by a relatively small number of ballots. Once you get to a situation where an election is turning on, say, fewer than 5,000 or 10,000 votes, the struggle can get difficult. In many cases there could be questions over what constitutes a valid ballot. Again, the rules are different from state to state.

Beyond that, there are issues with verifying signatures and I wonder if the country is in an emotional state to deal with a situation where you have Republican and Democratic lawyers battling over how to interpret whether a [voter’s] signature matches or not.

I still think it looks like Biden will have a narrow victory. Or, if it’s a razor-thin victory for either side, we might move to the next stage which is essentially “lawfare.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to stop the count and settle the election in the Supreme Court. Can he do that?

No. I don't think that is likely. The Supreme Court has laid down a bewildering variety of decisions in the last few weeks on the question of state regulations about vote-counting. But what it seems to come down to is this: If state courts have extended ballot counting days, the Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins has suggested that this is fine, that state courts are the final interpreters of states’ election laws.

I don't think President Trump is likely to find much help at the Supreme Court level – even if a state court were to extend the counting timeline. The only situation would be if, for some reason, the Democratic Party had tried to go to federal court. The Supreme Court would overturn a federal decision that clearly alters the state legislative scheme. But the Supreme Court, even with a conservative majority, doesn’t seem willing to wade in on this issue.

As an editorial comment: I really, really hope it doesn't get to that [the Supreme Court]. The time to figure out the exact rules of your election is before the election, not after the voting has occurred.

It's difficult for Americans to find common ground on any issue, but if there's one issue where there has to be acceptance of the rules of the game, it's with elections.

So, in short, you don't expect the Supreme Court to have a decisive influence, as it did in 2000?

It's hard to say. But if you look at the court in a purely political manner and consider its voting decisions over the last few weeks in response to state court decisions, you see that the Supreme Court does not want to be the arbiter of this. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, don’t engage in judicial statesmanship. But John Roberts does. And he, I think, is looking at this and he is more concerned with maintaining the long-term legitimacy of the court.

It would be shattered under contemporary conditions if you had again a repeat of something like the 2000 election and Bush v. Gore. You can understand their reasoning if they say: we want to leave it in somebody else's hands. If this means we leave it in the hands of state courts, we will leave it to them.

The pre-election polls suggested Biden was in the lead nationally and in battleground states for a long time. The election has turned out to be a nail-biter. What do you make of that?

I haven't had a chance this morning to look at how off the mark the polls were. In 2016 the typical response was the "poll are so erroneous," but if you looked a little bit closer, at least at the national level, they were in fact fairly accurate. What you had instead were polling errors in a few states that were in many ways under-polled. The real errors were in places like Minnesota, which was much closer than expected; Wisconsin and Michigan – the famous “Blue Wall” states.

I'm not 100 per cent sure the story is simply going to be: the polls were entirely erroneous. We'll have to wait until all the votes are counted. On one level you could say the polls were suggesting Biden was going to win and it looks like he's going to win. Perhaps polls can't get much more accurate than that. That's one perspective. The other perspective is that people are really not co-operating with polls and the general distrust of institutions is extending to the polling industry. In some ways, that is worse than the pollsters making mistakes in terms of how they model the electorate. I don't think any pollster has any other incentive except to be as accurate as possible. I don't think anybody wants to be wrong or would engage in some kind of political calculus.

Did it help Democrats in Florida that so many Democrats were predicting a victory? I don't think it helps Democrats. I think they were just wrong. Why were they wrong? I think it's possible people aren't co-operating. I think it's possible people are choosing not to answer pollsters. There could be some lying to pollsters. You have the famous social desirability thesis – the shy Tory thesis. I think all of that is in play now.

This might have broader implications for political science. Using polling as an instrument for examining a public – whether you're talking about opinion polling or opinions in regard to voting – that becomes less legitimate a tool if people are evading pollsters, if people don't want to be surveyed in that way.

Whether Trump wins or loses, nearly 67 million American voted for him this election. What does this say about Trumpism as a force in the Republican Party?

The Republican Party is Trumpism now. Even if he loses, this was a decisive defeat for what you might call the neo-conservative wing of the party. If Trump is able to increase his vote amongst Hispanics running essentially on a populist candidacy, then the argument for neo-conservatism has to some degree been undermined. I think that wing of the Republican Party is going to be weakened and the people who are more aligned with Trumpian populism will say: maybe the [reason we lost] is Trump. If you had a more competent response to the COVID-19 crisis, even just on a rhetorical level, and if you had not tried to politicize this issue and demonize the people you disagree with – if you had, even in a cynical way, said, ‘Let the experts handle this’, maybe then people would have understood to some degree. A lot of Republicans will be saying this is a consequence of Trump as a person, his failure in the COVID-19 crisis, and we just need someone who is going to adopt many of the same policy positions but is just more effective in terms of managing the administration of government.

I think new political options open up for the Republican Party when they look at the Latino vote in this election. Suddenly the possibility of not just talking about immigration enforcement looks attractive, but perhaps some sort of amnesty as well. Perhaps you can thread the needle on this issue. Even if they didn't experience an overwhelming defeat under Trump, I think the nature of this electoral victory will cause the Republican Party to recalibrate a little bit on this issue.

Again, an editorial comment: If the Republican Party's response is: We can succeed as a populist party if we're less racist and xenophobic, that seems pretty good to me. That seems like a decent outcome for the country.

I think one narrative you're likely to hear from Republicans is that Trump lost this because of COVID – end of story. Absent the plague and his disastrous response, there would have been a very different outcome. We can still win with a new sort of political playbook that Trump has introduced.

What were some other surprises in the election results so far?

I was a little bit surprised by Arizona in the sense that this was one of the few states where pollsters suggested that Trump had a very good chance of winning. What you're seeing there is just the way in which the political geography of the country is changing, and how Arizona is perhaps joining the post-industrial category of states that you associate more with California and Colorado, where the economy is leaning toward younger, more college-educated people.

We'll have to dig through the results to assess this, but we're seeing an interesting class divide on some of these questions between the two parties and it's almost like a Brexit vote in a way. It seems to shift toward the Democratic Party on the presidential level. I would guess that this has been led by more middle class, upper-middle class individuals with college educations. And with the Republican Party, it avoided a landslide defeat by doing better among more working class individuals.

Is there still a “Blue Wall” in the rust belt?

No. That's done. Those are the blue battlegrounds now. I think those states are in play. It's interesting to look at some of the differences in the blue battlegrounds. That's an area where I was somewhat surprised. I was talking with students who thought if Trump was going to win at all, he would likely take the “Blue Wall,” Pennsylvania to Minnesota. But we see that, in the case of a state like Minnesota, the results are very different and you have a much clearer Biden victory, greater I believe than Clinton in 2016.

I think at least some of these states are going to be in play for the foreseeable future. Even if Biden takes all of those states, the victory will be relatively narrow.

The Senate and House races look tight. Do you expect the balance of power in either chamber to change hands?

I don't think so. I think the most likely outcome now – and again this isn't something I looked at in detail this morning – I suspect the Republicans are going to hang on narrowly perhaps down one seat or two. Even if I'm wrong on these questions, the Democrats will look at these outcomes and say this is not a realigning election. This is not an election that gives us a clear indication of our mandate. And I think this means they're going to have to tread very, very carefully.

The narrowness of this victory means that all this talk of major institutional change – adding new states, getting rid of the filibuster, getting rid of the electoral college, packing the courts – all of those things that might have been on the table look very different when you've just gotten over the goal line.

Even if they control all three branches, it will be narrow and they will have to seriously consider the policy options available to them.

Why do you think this race was so close given that over 230,000 Americans have died of the coronavirus and the economy is faltering?

You can compare the COVID-19 crisis to the financial crisis. It was very easy in the short term to create a narrative in 2008 that the general Republican worldview was the cause of this crisis, even if some Democrats had played ball on issues related to financial deregulation and by cozying up to Wall Street. The general narrative was that Republicans are suspicious of regulation of the financial industry and look what happens.

The COVID-19 crisis is significantly more complicated, particularly when people can look around and see different types of responses all over the world. I still think the Republicans were still hurt by it, but the narrative is not quite as strong. Responding to COVID-19 has a lot do with how states react, how cities react. The president is not the Wizard of Oz, sitting with a giant machine pushing COVID-19 response buttons.

Now that doesn't mean the president was successful using the tools available to him. It doesn't mean the president was successful in terms of his rhetoric or bringing the country together to deal with what is really not a political crisis but, at root, a natural disaster.

To get back to the economic aspect of the question: The economic crisis was caused by COVID-19. It wasn't caused by the policies of the Trump administration, unless you literally think there was a series of policy options that could have stopped the virus cold. People can look around to Europe and different policy responses around the world and they can see it's hard to know.

Trump has described vote counting as “major fraud” and said the Democrats are trying to “steal” the election. How has this affected the American public's faith in the electoral process?

I'm not certain Republicans are going to be rioting in the street over this, although I think it was irresponsible, of course, for Trump to say that.

What we might start seeing is that the Republican Party is ready to move beyond Trump, and I think what they're probably feeling is enough confidence to say: Our success and future as a party doesn't depend on Trump, even if to some degree it depends on Trumpism. This might be wishful thinking: I'm hoping that he doesn't create a presumption on the part of his supporters that the counting of the ballots cannot be valid. That's what makes it so irresponsible – to raise this issue of fraud to try to undermine the legitimacy of the process even before it occurs.

There can be legitimate disagreements over the way the count is proceeding, but to have that as your first move? I think that was unwise.

Vanity Fair goes inside ��TV's new course on Trump and the media

geoff.vendeville — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:38:07 +0000

Vanity Fair goes inside ��TV's new course on Trump and the media

geoff.vendeville Fri, 01/11/2019 - 10:38

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the press as he departs the White House in Washington, DC, on Jan.10, 2019 (photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

Topic

St. Michael's College

U.S. politics

United States

Sam Tanenhaus, a former New York Times journalist teaching at the University of Toronto this year, prepared a detailed syllabus for his course on Trump and the media. But like the U.S. president often does, Tanenhaus went off script.

He informally redubbed the course, in the book and media studies program, “Trump in Real Time” and leads a discussion each week about Trump in the news cycle, according to a description of the class in Vanity Fair.

At first, not everyone thought a course on Donald Trump was a good idea, Randy Boyagoda, the principal of St. Michael's College and English professor who came up with the idea, tells the magazine.

“You say 'Trump' in a serious context and they laugh. It's a lizard-brain reaction of the elites.”

But the class's 180 students, the vast majority of them women, appear so engaged in the material that the university is considering taking a similar approach to other subjects, including a “#MeToo in the Media” course, according to the article.

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:24:00 +0000

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 07/23/2018 - 10:24

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with White House Physician Rear Admiral Dr. Ronny Jackson following his annual physical in January (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Topic

University of Toronto researchers are warning the medical community that a popular cognitive test may be compromised due to the extensive publicity it received after U.S. President Donald Trump took it.

Recently, Trump’s physician announced that the president achieved a perfect score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a test for mild cognitive impairment that's often the first step toward dementia. Media covered the story extensively, leading ��TV Faculty of Medicine researchers to investigate the impact this exposure could have on test-takers. One of the authors, Dr. Eric Coomes, a third-year medical resident in internal medicine, spoke with ��TV writer Heidi Singer about the study.

Why were you concerned about coverage of the MoCA?

Watching the news stories on the MoCA in relation to President Trump’s cognitive evaluation, we were impressed by the mass dissemination of information about this test, which was primarily only known to the medical community. As readers were exposed to the test, and in some cases even being invited to self-administer the test online, we wondered if there could be an effect down the road. We wanted to quantify the degree and nature of the [impact of the] test’s dissemination.

We searched the news cycle for a period in January and found 190 articles discussing the MoCA in association with President Trump. Of those, we found over half revealed either parts of or the full content of the MoCA questionnaire to the general public. More than one in six articles invited people to take the test, many posed as a self-challenge. A smaller proportion even provided answers so people could see how the test is graded.

How problematic is that?

Previous studies have demonstrated a potential for a learning effect on the MoCA. It may be that your previous exposure will strengthen your future scores. The impact would likely be greatest among people with very mild cognitive impact. People with more severe cognitive impairment would be unlikely to remember having seen the answers to the test previously. But with people who are healthy or at the very earliest stages of cognitive impairment, there may be some effect. At this point, however, the risk associated with media dissemination is hypothetical. It would be interesting if future tests looked at this.

Is it best for health providers to avoid this test for the short term?

There’s an easy way out. All the articles presented version one of the test. There are other versions – two and three – that have different word lists and content. We published a letter in JAMA Neurology advising providers to ask people whether they’ve been previously exposed, and for those who have, consider using alternate versions of the test.

For how long?

It depends whether there’s ongoing media interest in this test. This was the first time an American president underwent formal cognitive evaluation while in office, with mass media coverage. Only time will tell whether this will happen in the future. Until the learning effect of media coverage is better characterized, it will be hard to know how long an effect might last.

What kind of reaction have you received to your study?

We’ve all been impressed at how much interest there’s been in the study. There’s been a really positive response among our peers. There’s been quite a bit of local and international media interest. The goal of our piece was not to infer any conclusions about the president, but rather to look at the impact of media dissemination of a cognitive evaluation.

Why do you think there has been so much interest?

It provided an impetus for lots of outlets to discuss the topic of the president’s cognitive testing. But it also gave some media an opportunity for self-reflection. The New York Times linked to their own previous coverage, in which they published contents of the questionnaire.

It was an excellent opportunity to explore the relationship between media and medicine and show how public-sphere events have an impact on clinical practice. The interplay between medicine and the general world is often overlooked, but as practitioners we need to be aware of that interplay. This is a perfect example of how they intersect.

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Christopher.Sorensen — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:40:10 +0000

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Christopher.Sorensen Fri, 07/13/2018 - 14:40

Cutline

Jeffrey Dvorkin, the director of the journalism program at ��TV Scarborough, has written a new book to help train journalists in an age of disinformation (photo by rawpixel via Unsplash)

Topic

University of Toronto Scarborough

When Jeffrey Dvorkin began his journalism career at CBS News in 1972, “the assumption was that no one is going to lie to you.”

“There was a complete agreement that the news you got from your local newspaper or off the local radio or television was fine,” says Dvorkin, who was then a graduate student. “Partly because we may have been a bit naive, but it was also about how news and information was a kind of cultural glue that kept a society together.”

Nearly 50 years later, Dvorkin is the director of the journalism program at the University of Toronto Scarborough, where graduates enter an entirely transformed media environment. In the midst of the digital era, news organizations' resources are plummeting while the quantity of information – and the speed that it's delivered to consumers – is skyrocketing. To prepare up-and-coming journalists for this environment, he wrote Critical News Literacy, a textbook that hits shelves this summer.

The book covers topics including truth and verification, bias (both good and bad), deconstructing news and its sources, and the consequences of fake news. The book also calls for the “best traditions of journalists” – which Dvorkin dubs “curiosity and skepticism” – to be imparted to the public. Each chapter concludes with an ethical dilemma ripped from the headlines of Dvorkin’s time as the first ombudsman for National Public Radio (NPR).

One of the book’s major themes is understanding what constitutes reputable information, suggesting the acronym “VIA,” which stands for “verification," “independence" and “accountability."

“If one of those elements might be missing from a piece of journalism or a news report that you’re looking at, reading, listening to, then you should be questioning the whole thing,” Dvorkin says.

“There’s still a lot of people who are easily changed by that misinformation and disinformation.”

Dvorkin argues the problem of fake news is magnified by an assumption in journalism: digital is better for communicating and, thus, more digital is even better

Inspiration came to Dvorkin in New York, at Stony Brook University, where he teaches four journalism classes per year by video. He observed American students struggling to be part of the “Trumpian environment.” Upon learning of Dvorkin’s planned study leave, one professor encouraged him to write a book on that very theme.

In 2017, while redesigning introductory courses for the ��TV Scarborough journalism program, Dvorkin realized his 12 lectures could be written into chapters (the book will not be required for his courses).

He argues the problem of inaccurate information, including fake news, is furthered by a an assumption in journalism – that digital is better for communicating and, thus, more digital is even better.

“Instead, people are so overwhelmed by this stuff that they’re in retreat,” Dvorkin says. He explains that this is why some pull away from the news, only visit sites that confirm existing beliefs or withdraw entirely to watch cat videos.

He says the solution is to develop a new set of instincts. Dvorkin hopes Critical News Literacy will introduce students to the idea that it is acceptable to take regular breathers from technology.

“It’s a big challenge, but it’s one that I think is urgently needed at this point,” he says.

This would require a mental shift for students since it would require to them to view technology as a tool. However, Dvorkin says this could “give them a kind of an empowerment.”

Dvorkin hopes this sense of control will extend to other aspects of digital life, including self-image, insecurity and the mental health issues that impact young people who grow up entrenched in technology.

“I think that this idea of a digital detox is really important. We have to figure out the ways we can do it,” he says. “One way is to give people a sense that they control the information, not the other way around.”

Too upset to stay engaged? ��TV researcher explores the link between negative emotions and political activism

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 11 Jul 2018 04:00:00 +0000

Too upset to stay engaged? ��TV researcher explores the link between negative emotions and political activism

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 07/11/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

��TV study looked at people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. election and found they were less likely to be politically active if they took steps to manage their emotions (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images)

Topic

University of Toronto Scarborough

When you confront upsetting political events, like a new policy you find immoral or the election of someone you dislike, it goes without saying that you will experience negative emotions.

But new University of Toronto research finds that when we manage those emotions, we can end up being less politically active – meaning we're less likely to do things like contact government officials, attend rallies, or donate money and time to political organizations.

This research explores an interesting dilemma: negative emotions can be a powerful motivating force in spurring political action, but we also attempt to rein in those emotions in order to restore our well-being. The result is that we may feel better, but we’re less likely to take political action to address the problem itself.

“There seems to be a trade-off,” says Brett Ford, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at ��TV Scarborough and lead author of the research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. “Negative emotions motivate us to take action, but negative emotions don’t feel good, so we’re naturally motivated to find ways to avoid feeling them.

“When we reduce these feelings in the short term, it can come at the longer-term cost of being less politically active.”

In her research, Ford (left) and her co-authors explored the effect of one common strategy people use to manage their emotions called cognitive reappraisal, which is essentially reframing or reinterpreting a negative event in order to feel better.

“There are many ways to use reappraisal, but the key to reappraisal is that people have found a way to think differently about the situation in order to feel better. Some people may rationalize that it’s not that bad and it won’t last long, or maybe they think they’ll find a community of like-minded individuals to pull through a difficult time together.”

A series of six studies explored this effect among those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the last U.S. presidential election.

One found that when people used reappraisal to manage their emotions, they were less likely to donate money to a political cause, to volunteer their time, and to take part in demonstrations and protests. Meanwhile, other studies found that those who used reappraisal to manage their emotions about politics were less likely to consider taking political action in the future.

“These studies came to the same conclusion: those who use reappraisal felt better, but were less likely to be motivated to get involved and try to change the system that upset them in the first place,” says Ford, whose lab focuses on the effects emotions can have in making people sick or in helping them thrive.

So what can people do to feel better emotionally, but stay politically engaged?

Ford says there may be ways to promote action that don’t necessarily rely on negative emotion. It could mean working in a larger group that values engaging in political action to address a common goal, or it could involve cultivating positive emotions like hope or compassion in order to confront negative political events.

It may also involve a balance of using reappraisal to get through the day and yet staying in touch with one’s negative emotions to keep motivated. Future research may be able to figure out what combination is best for certain individuals.

Ford says it’s important to recognize that negative emotion can be a powerful motivating force in getting people to be politically active. She uses the example of students affected by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fla. who publicly said they wanted to stay angry in order to maintain their motivation to spur political change related to gun control.

“It can be a good thing to ‘stay mad’ but there can also be costs associated with that because it’s a heavy burden to stay mad over a long period of time,” explains Ford.

The cognitive strategies people use to reduce negative emotion may also help explain why citizens in a democracy seem apathetic. Ford says that much has been made of U.S. citizens being less engaged politically, but it’s important to understand the underlying factors that may be keeping people out of the loop.

“Our research suggests that perhaps people aren’t getting involved not simply because they’re apathetic, but because they’ve found a way to protect their emotional well-being, which is also an important goal in distressing times,” she says.

“People need to make decisions that are right for them, but it’s also key that we understand the consequences of those decisions.”

NAFTA talks moving ahead is a good sign, say ��TV experts

ullahnor — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:44:43 +0000

NAFTA talks moving ahead is a good sign, say ��TV experts

ullahnor Tue, 01/30/2018 - 14:44

Cutline

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland at the closing of the NAFTA meetings in Montreal on Monday. The sixth round of talks ended on a positive note (photo by Peter McCabe/AFP/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Faculty of Arts & Science

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Political Science

Rotman School of Management

Trade

��TV Scarborough

U.S. politics

With NAFTA talks ending on a more positive note than expected this week, ��TV News reached out to our experts on what, if anything, has changed and the challenges ahead for trilateral bargaining.

Grace Skogstad is a professor of political science at ��TV Scarborough. Walid Hejazi is an associate professor of international business at ��TV's Rotman School of Management. Robert Bothwell is a professor of international relations and Canadian history at the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs.

So does this mean there's hope for NAFTA?

Grace Skogstad (left): I do think it's good news that negotiators for all three countries emerged with something positive to say about the talks. Although U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the pace of the talks needed to be accelerated, he nonetheless also said he was committed to moving forward.

Walid Hejazi: The first thing you learn about negotiations, especially with [U.S. President Donald] Trump, is that you have to let the other person know you're willing to walk away. If they think you're not willing to walk away, they'll use that to their advantage. Trump played hardball at the very beginning, asking for things that were outrageous. I think the Canadian and the Mexican side did exactly the right thing, to say, “Look, we are willing to walk away because the deal that Donald Trump proposed would be really bad for Canada.” The Americans have moved really far in signalling that they’re not as anxious to walk away as Trump indicated initially. This is excellent news for the possibility that NAFTA will be sustained.

What changed? Could Trump be willing to take a new approach?

Grace Skogstad: Canada's World Trade Organization challenge of U.S. softwood lumber duties may have some impact, but I think if the U.S. position is indeed changing, it is because of U.S. domestic pressures and developments. U.S. business groups, including American farm groups, and several Republicans support NAFTA. There is a battle going on within the Republican Party between economic nationalists and free traders, and it may be that the free traders are gaining the upper hand.

In addition, President Trump himself may be feeling a bit more secure about his record. He got his tax reform bill through Congress so he now has a big win. As much as Canada would like to take some credit for the negotiations continuing (because of our trade challenge or because we have shown some flexibility on auto content, for example), I think it is likely U.S. developments are more important factors.

Walid Hejazi (right): The Canadians have played this perfectly. Trump knows we're not going to walk away, and we're not going to cave. The United States is Canada's natural trading partner. We do 75 per cent of our trade with the U.S., not because we like Americans, but because from a profit maximizing perspective, that's the best place for companies to go. But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, we are not going to dissolve as a country if NAFTA collapses. Trade will continue with the U.S. as it did before free trade, and there's lots of other parts of the world that are growing. I think Trump is realizing that he played hardball, and it didn't work. And Canada and other countries are moving forward with trade, while the U.S. is falling behind. I think there's a realization that the impact of protectionism could hurt the U.S. especially as other countries move forward.

What is Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Canada up against when negotiating in these talks?

Grace Skogstad: The biggest challenge, and it is undoubtedly a challenge for U.S. negotiators too, is the inconsistency of President Trump's position on NAFTA. One week he tweets that he could be “a little bit flexible” on withdrawing from NAFTA. The next week he tweets that abandoning NAFTA would be "good."

Walid Hejazi: The real threat was the Americans walking away. It's insane to believe that you're going to put something on the table in which the other side loses, and somehow the other side is going to accept that, which is what Trump's argument was before. So that was the biggest thing Canada was up against – a Donald Trump who makes a decision that economically would hurt the U.S. but politically could help him. But it seems that now that they're allowing the negotiations to go forward, which means that Donald Trump has walked away from that. So, I would call this a victory for Canada. The fact that the American belligerence in these negotiations has been somewhat diminished, the fact that they're allowing the negotiations to go on, shows that the Americans are walking away from the madman strategy.

Have they agreed on anything so far? What is left to resolve?

Grace Skogstad: The media report progress on so called “new issues,” such as digital trade, but there remain thorny issues to resolve. They include the percentage of U.S. content in autos, the U.S. objective of automatic termination of NAFTA after five years, and labour standards. There is also the issue of the U.S. seeking greater access to Canada's dairy market. Canada's effort to show flexibility on NAFTA rules of origin with respect to autos was rebuffed by Lighthizer. I think Canada can't and won't agree to the U.S. objective of eliminating the dispute resolution mechanism. Canada and Mexico are proposing a review of NAFTA every five years, rather than an automatic sunset clause. Agreeing to greater U.S. access to Canada's dairy market may be politically problematic since Canada has already conceded more market share to the EU, under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, and the newly signed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP, also known as the revised TPP or TPP11).

Robert Bothwell (left): Less publicized areas – those that Trump and Lighthizer have not publicly pronounced on – do seem to have shown progress. We know that Trump does not have a head for details, and the more detailed, the less likely to be subjected to his interference.

How could the newly signed and revised TPP impact NAFTA negotiations for the auto sector?

Walid Hejazi: When you bring in the TPP, that's creating a new economic bloc that will be much more integrated and much more efficient, which means a lot of companies that may have located within the U.S. are not going to locate in the TPP region like Canada. With the TPP, Canada looks more attractive because now if you locate in Canada, you can get access to trade with all of the TPP countries. The TPP has been good for Canada but bad for the American bargaining position.

Are Canadians prepared for the U.S. to walk away from NAFTA? What would happen to Canada, its economy, specific industries (auto, dairy) if NAFTA fails?

Grace Skogstad: We have no alternative but to take President Trump's threat seriously. Canada, and in particular, Ontario, would take an economic hit if NAFTA fails. Experts disagree on how big the hit would be, but the governor of the Bank of Canada has stated that we cannot assume it will be “a small shock.”

In the 25 years since NAFTA was signed, Canada has also gained access to other markets through the World Trade Organization, and more recently to the EU. The CPTPP will open up other markets. Even if we cannot replace the U.S. market overnight, I think Canada has taken some important steps to reduce its future dependence on the U.S. market.

Robert Bothwell: There would be considerable pain if the disruption were immediate. More likely the unwinding would be gradual. There is a slight possibility that we would revert to the old free trade agreement that was superseded by NAFTA. Or we could revert to the basic World Trade Organization agreement, which would temper the impact. If Trump denounces that too then the disruption would be serious for a number of years.

For autos, there would obviously be damage, and the result would be to disadvantage those companies who have well-established supply chains. As for dairy, the dairy farmers would weep tears of joy that the threat to supply management – a major U.S. target – has been averted. Are we (Canada, the industries) prepared for that alternative? I cannot say. It has been 83 years since we confronted the U.S. in any kind of trade war. It would be an unfamiliar experience, but, as a historian, I have to say we survived 70 years of U.S. hostility or indifference from 1866 to 1935.

If I read the comments from Canadians in today’s New York Times correctly, there is a feeling that we should not let ourselves be bullied. That is especially the case with Trump, who is more unpopular in Canada than even George W. Bush.

'Highly conceivable' Trump will be stronger in 2018: David Frum discusses new book at ��TV

ullahnor — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 05:00:00 +0000

'Highly conceivable' Trump will be stronger in 2018: David Frum discusses new book at ��TV

ullahnor Fri, 01/26/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

David Frum (centre) was at ��TV this week to talk about his new book on Donald Trump. He spoke on a panel with The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg and Indigo Books' CEO Heather Reisman (photos by Noreen Ahmed-Ullah)

Topic

Martin Prosperity Institute

Rotman School of Management

U.S. politics

Toronto native and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum calls U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election one of the biggest scandals in American history. But he says he doesn't expect any high profile indictments – of President Donald Trump, or anyone in close proximity to him – to come out of Mueller's investigation.

“To sit down to take a meeting with a foreign intelligence agency and say how can we work collaboratively to win this election against an American opponent – that is a great scandal,” Frum said.

Speaking at an event at ��TV's Rotman School of Management, Frum predicted we will see a series of indictments on technical infractions of election law and electronic communications law.

When asked about how much Trump knew about the meeting with Russian officials, Frum said, “Trump's son did. Trump's campaign manager did it. And if you believe Donald Trump Jr. didn't share the information – well we don't know he shared with his father – but it seems highly unlikely.”

Known for his role in creating the phrase “axis of evil,” Frum appeared at the Jan. 24 event to talk about his newly released book, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. The hour-long discussion, organized by Rotman's Martin Prosperity Institute, The Atlantic magazine and Indigo Books, featured Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, and Heather Reisman, founder and CEO of Indigo Books & Music, who moderated the discussion.

Frum went on to predict that it's “highly conceivable” that Trump will be stronger in 2018 than he was in 2017. If he lasts eight years, Trump will be utilizing more authoritarian means, like more extreme presidential control of parts of the executive branch and pressure on voting registration, especially in contested states, Frum said.

“I think you will see a radicalization of the American left,” he added. “A lot of that is going on right now in response. The Democratic Party will be pulled toward [U.S. senators Bernie] Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. ...You will see the politics of the country being divided, ever less by economics, and ever more by ethnicity and other forms of identity. Urban versus rural is going to be quasi-ethnic, and you will have an open door to Russian meddling because the President will not defend the country from that crowd.”

Goldberg said Frum's writings are some of the most important work in American journalism today on the subject.

“The real fear that I have, this is sort of the 100-year kind of fear, is that the epitaph of the Trump administration, or Trump himself, is ‘He Made China Great Again.’ That's what's happened every day, when we signal to our adversaries that we are irresolute, and we signal to our allies that we are bad friends.”

He said his greatest fear isn't the nuclear threat.

“There was an international order created from 1945 on, that America set the rules of the road and enforced the liberal, democratic order from everything from international trade agreements to keeping the seas safe from piracy. Donald Trump is not interested even in understanding the historical role America has played as a stabilizing democratic force. He is accelerating the rise of the Chinese empire and accelerating the demise of what you might call the American empire.”

Two ��TV experts take on Trump in Globe and Mail op-eds marking his first year

noreen.rasbach — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:20:47 +0000

Two ��TV experts take on Trump in Globe and Mail op-eds marking his first year

noreen.rasbach Wed, 01/17/2018 - 14:20

Cutline

U.S. First Lady Melania Trump, President Donald Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence and Karen Pence on inaugural day, Jan. 20, 2017 (photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)

Topic

Global Lens

Faculty of Arts & Science

Global

U.S. politics

With Saturday marking the first anniversary of U.S. President Donald Trump taking office, two experts at the University of Toronto have weighed in with Globe and Mail op-eds that take critical aim at his presidency so far.

Clifford Orwin, a professor of political science, looks at the unimpeachable president. The U.S. Constitution allows for impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanours,” Orwin writes – and while “a wealth” of misdemeanours can be ascribed to Trump, there are no high crimes yet (although, Orwin allows, we don’t know the outcome of the Robert Mueller inquiry).

Orwin then moves to the political, writing that “Trump has compromised his presidency beyond recovery.” His low approval rating during a time of an economic miniboom means he hasn’t persuaded the skeptics, and Orwin suggests “there is little prospect of [the approval rate] rising.”

What a president says matters, Orwin writes. “Mr. Trump’s feckless mouthings so besmirch his policies as to sap whatever plausibility they might otherwise possess.” It means the White House’s “only serious business is damage control.”

Read Clifford Orwin's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Mark Kingwell, a professor of philosophy at ��TV, shares Orwin’s scathing assessment of Trump. In an op-ed entitled “You’re either with Trump or you’re a reasonable person,” Kingwell writes that Trump is, “by his own actions and statements, a racist, a misogynist, a narcissist and a fool.”

Why does Trump remain untouched in power? Kingwell suggests three reasons – though he writes that “none of them are creditable or valid, let alone worth the support of sane people.”

The first: Trump is too big to fail, with many people having deep stakes in the administration, such as Wall Street banks who will benefit from his tax plan.

The second is that he is getting support from “a group of the most craven, incumbency-shadowing, spine-free creatures the world has ever suffered to host.” High-ranking Republicans are not denouncing his outrageous remarks, Kingwell writes.

The third is that there are people who agree with Trump, his so-called base. Kingwell writes that while there was reason to consider the rational Trump voter during the election – “disaffected, disenfranchised, frustrated, looking for a change from politics as usual” – anyone who continues to support him "is either an idiotic sucker or a shameful racist.”

Read Mark Kingwell's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Spotlight on Canada's health-care system during Bernie Sanders's visit to Toronto this weekend

ullahnor — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:01:29 +0000

Spotlight on Canada's health-care system during Bernie Sanders's visit to Toronto this weekend

ullahnor Wed, 10/25/2017 - 16:01

Cutline

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders introduces the Medicare for All bill on Sept. 13. Dr. Danielle Martin, who is standing behind him (left), helped bring him to Toronto (photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

Health

International

U.S. politics

As he tries to build a movement for universal health care in the United States, Senator Bernie Sanders’s much-anticipated trip to Toronto this weekend is meant to be a fact-finding mission on Canada’s health-care system.

The most popular politician in the U.S., according to a new poll released this summer, Sanders arrives in Toronto Saturday for a whirlwind trip of roundtable discussions, meetings with patients, visits to health-care facilities and this weekend’s hottest ticket – a talk on Sunday at University of Toronto’s Convocation Hall.

Professor Gregory Marchildon of ��TV’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health said Sanders’s appeal – especially for millennials on both sides of the border – lies in his populist message.

“The event sold out in less than a minute – I wasn’t surprised by that, in part because of his high profile during the presidential campaign,” Marchildon said. “I think he captured many Canadians’ attention during that time. They saw the substance of his message as being more reflective of their values.”

Sanders, who proposed a Medicare for All bill in the U.S. Congress last month, said he's coming here to learn about Canada’s health care, and how this country is spending half as much as the U.S. per capita in providing services. He's also interested in understanding how Canada’s cost of prescription drugs is “substantially less than in the United States.”

“The United States is the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all their people as a right,” Sanders said via email. “In Toronto, I look forward to speaking with Canadian doctors, patients and administrators to see what we can learn from the Canadian system.”

Sanders, who hopes to reshape American health care into a government-run, single-payer program – similar to what we have in Canada – has taken his bill on the road to various U.S. states. His trip to Canada – organized by Dr. Danielle Martin, a vice-president of Women’s College Hospital, the Broadbent Institute and Marchildon – is an opportunity to learn more about the pros and cons of Canada’s health-care system.

Martin, an associate professor at Dalla Lana’s Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, first met Sanders three years ago in Washington D.C. Her defence of Canadian health care before a tough U.S. congressional committee debating Obamacare drew immediate international attention. Sanders endorsed her recent book about Canadian health care, titled Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for all Canadians, and she in turn showed up to support Sanders when he launched his bill last month.

“We thought it would be terrific for him to come and see the Canadian system for himself and to learn more about what’s working and also our challenges, to hear directly from patients, health-care providers and policy experts,” she said. “We’re all clear, and he understands very well that in a single day or two visiting the city of Toronto, he’s not going to get a complete picture of everything to do with the Canadian health-care system, or the particular challenges of rural communities, Indigenous health disparities or a wide range of important issues. He’ll get a flavour of what’s working, although it won’t be exhaustive.”

Martin emphasized that the trip will also present some of the challenges of health-care delivery in Canada.

“I certainly don’t think he believes for a minute that everything is positive and glowing, and neither do we. We all know that there’s very significant challenges in the Canadian health-care system,” she said.

“This is not a public relations exercise. It’s a learning exercise, and that means he’ll be hearing about what works and what doesn’t.”

She added though that this was still an opportunity to show pride in our health-care system.

“It’s very Canadian to downplay your accomplishments and focus solely on the distance yet to be travelled. So, we won’t solely be highlighting the challenges, we will also be celebrating our successes. From the perspective of many of the patients that I know he’ll be meeting when he comes to Toronto, many of them, if they had been in similar life circumstances in the U.S., would have almost certainly had a far inferior experience in the health-care system than the one they had in Canada. And that is also an important message for our neighbours south of the border to hear.”

Though considered dead-on-arrival in the Republican-controlled Congress, Sanders’s bill hopes to build momentum for universal health care – for the next election.

“This is about more than just passing a bill,” Martin said. “It’s about engaging citizens in a conversation. Senator Sanders is known for his capacity to build a movement and not just campaign on a particular legislation. That’s what he’s trying to do with this bill, build a movement for universal, single-payer health care in the United States, and part of his journey to Canada is to understand how that movement may or may not cross borders.”

Marchildon added that Sanders’s bill is also intended as a criticism of the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle Obamacare and to offer alternatives to current health-care options.

“[Sanders] sees his bill as a symbol of where the U.S. can go down the road and as a critique of the current approach,” said Marchildon, who is the founding director of the North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, which studies and analyzes health systems in the U.S. and Canada at Dalla Lana's Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation. He’s speaking this week at another health-care conference in the U.S. about the Canadian system.

Does he believe a universal health-care proposal like Sanders's could ever get passed in the U.S.?

“It’s more likely now than it would’ve been five years ago,” Marchildon said. “The experience of the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] is that it has been good in some respects. It covered gaps in coverage, but it has very little cost control. It is extremely expensive from an administrative standpoint, and therefore single-payer could work. Some states have tried it, so I think there’s more openness about it now.

“But it would be a huge battle. I would warn that the demonization of Canada is part and parcel of a campaign to derail any movement to a single-payer system by a broad range of interests who do not want this to happen. Right now, insurance companies play a very important role in the U.S. system, and they would lose that position with the creation of a single-payer system. There are numerous other powerful interest groups that are against this.”

Sanders's public talk on “What the U.S. Can Learn from Canadian Health Care” will be livestreamed at 11 a.m. on Sunday. For streaming details, visit the ��TV Facebook page on Oct. 28.

Are Trump's “loose lips” ground for impeachment? ��TV historian dissects latest controversy

ullahnor — Tue, 16 May 2017 21:00:21 +0000

Are Trump's “loose lips” ground for impeachment? ��TV historian dissects latest controversy

ullahnor Tue, 05/16/2017 - 17:00

Cutline

The May 10th meeting at the heart of the controversy: U.S. President Donald Trump with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (left) and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak (right) in the Oval Office (photo by Alexander Shcherbak/TASS/Getty)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Faculty of Arts & Science

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

On Tuesday under pressure from lawmakers, U.S. President Donald Trump defended his decision to reveal highly classified information to Russian officials.

He tweeted that he had the “absolute right” to share the intelligence, and that he did it for “humanitarian reasons” because he wanted Russia “to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.”

The Russian related controversy comes on the heels of Trump's abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose agency is investigating potential ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 presidential bid. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Comey had written a memo, saying that Trump had asked him to close an investigation into Michael Flynn.

As the story continues to develop, Russian President Vladimir Putin has now offered to release a record of the meeting.

��TV News spoke with Professor Ronald Pruessen, from the department of history in the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs, who likened the rumblings in the Trump administration to “a Jenga tower filled with vibrating pieces, shaking constantly.”

With a small group of congressional Democrats now using the “I” word, calling for Trump's impeachment, Pruessen says it may still be early.

“To fire Comey or to flap those loose lips with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office may have been stupid...but that's not the same as ‘illegal,’” Pruessen said.

Is the Trump White House unravelling? Are the leaked reports over intelligence breaches a sign that there's serious dissension – a potential coup of sorts?

Something has to have been “whole” in the first place in order to unravel – and the Trump administration was never that. This is an administration that has been frazzled from the beginning – like a Jenga tower filled with vibrating pieces, shaking constantly – and we're simply (if sometimes frighteningly) seeing more of the same as the weeks go by. The key player is a spoiled and quite wicked child, aided and abetted (and sometimes used) by Conway, Bannon, Sessions, and others: an Addams Family without any of the cartoon charm.

A full-fledged collapse or implosion may be in the cards – in the House of Cards – if Trump doesn't learn and/or grow up – or if others don't figure out how to restrain him. But not quite yet.

Based on the history of U.S. presidents getting impeached, is there enough now for an impeachment?

It's not hard to imagine the possibility of impeachment with Trump, but my sense is that we're not really there yet.

It took years for the evidence and the will to mount before the Nixon impeachment possibility was credible or operational. We've had barely a 100 days with Trump. Republicans are still too attached to their president. The case(s) against Trump are also still somewhat debatable on the basis of available evidence: to fire Comey or to flap those loose lips with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office may have been stupid, for example, but that's not the same as “illegal.”

Give Trump enough time – or enough rope – and he just might seal the deal (as he does love to do). On the basis of what we've seen, who could seriously rule out an accumulation of egregious abuses of power – or brazen business/financial machinations?

What's your opinion of the extent of Russian meddling in the election and Trump's relationship with Russia – how much is he sharing?

A case of “too soon to know.”

Putin and company are capable of their own outrageous and outlandish behaviour, of course – inflicting severe consequences on their victims. The Moscow crew, however, is from the leadership gene pool that brought the world both a decaying czarist autocracy and an imploding/collapsing Soviet Union. Can they really muster the capacity to disrupt or bring down the United States – even if they want to? Americans (and not only Trump, by any means) are far more likely to do that to themselves without needing any outside provocations.

That said, we clearly need to wait and see what other evidence emerges about Russian intentions and actions – and about Trump's culpability.

U.S. politics

Who will win ... and when? ��TV political scientist unpacks a nail-biting U.S. election

Vanity Fair goes inside ��TV's new course on Trump and the media

Read more in Vanity Fair

Read more about Tanenhaus in ��TV News

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Too upset to stay engaged? ��TV researcher explores the link between negative emotions and political activism

NAFTA talks moving ahead is a good sign, say ��TV experts

'Highly conceivable' Trump will be stronger in 2018: David Frum discusses new book at ��TV

Two ��TV experts take on Trump in Globe and Mail op-eds marking his first year

Read Clifford Orwin's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Read Mark Kingwell's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Spotlight on Canada's health-care system during Bernie Sanders's visit to Toronto this weekend

Are Trump's “loose lips” ground for impeachment? ��TV historian dissects latest controversy

U.S. politics

Who will win ... and when? ����TV political scientist unpacks a nail-biting U.S. election

Vanity Fair goes inside ����TV's new course on Trump and the media

Read more in Vanity Fair

Read more about Tanenhaus in ����TV News

����TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Time for a digital detox? ����TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Too upset to stay engaged? ����TV researcher explores the link between negative emotions and political activism

NAFTA talks moving ahead is a good sign, say ����TV experts

'Highly conceivable' Trump will be stronger in 2018: David Frum discusses new book at ����TV

Two ����TV experts take on Trump in Globe and Mail op-eds marking his first year

Read Clifford Orwin's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Read Mark Kingwell's full op-ed in the Globe and Mail

Spotlight on Canada's health-care system during Bernie Sanders's visit to Toronto this weekend

Are Trump's “loose lips” ground for impeachment? ����TV historian dissects latest controversy

Who will win ... and when? ��TV political scientist unpacks a nail-biting U.S. election

Vanity Fair goes inside ��TV's new course on Trump and the media

Read more about Tanenhaus in ��TV News

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Too upset to stay engaged? ��TV researcher explores the link between negative emotions and political activism

NAFTA talks moving ahead is a good sign, say ��TV experts

'Highly conceivable' Trump will be stronger in 2018: David Frum discusses new book at ��TV

Two ��TV experts take on Trump in Globe and Mail op-eds marking his first year

Are Trump's “loose lips” ground for impeachment? ��TV historian dissects latest controversy