The conversation between Jesse Hirsh and Allan Gregg delves into the profound implications of President Trump's dismissive demeanor towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a recent White House visit. This interaction is framed not merely as a diplomatic faux pas but rather as a significant inflection point that may recalibrate the trajectory of international relations, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Hirsh and Gregg articulate their astonishment at the audacity of Trump's behavior, suggesting that such conduct would be intolerable in any personal or professional setting, let alone in a diplomatic one. They assert that this moment underscores a more extensive and alarming trend in political conduct that prioritizes media spectacle over substantive diplomatic engagement, with Trump wielding his media prowess to orchestrate moments that serve his narrative rather than the principles of diplomacy.

The discussion also touches upon the broader repercussions of this incident, particularly regarding the European response to American leadership. There is a palpable concern that Trump's actions not only alienate allies but also embolden adversaries, potentially ushering in a new era of geopolitical instability. Hirsh emphasizes the need for Europe to recognize the gravity of the situation and to consider a united front in support of Ukraine, while also contemplating the long-term implications of a U.S. administration that may be perceived as unreliable or erratic. The episode serves as a crucial reminder of the delicate balance of power in global politics and the responsibilities of leaders to maintain civility and respect in their interactions. In essence, this analysis offers a compelling narrative on the intersection of media, politics, and international relations, urging listeners to reflect on the future of diplomatic norms in an increasingly tumultuous world.

Takeaways:

• The disrespect exhibited by Trump towards Zelensky represents a profound shift in diplomatic decorum, highlighting the erosion of traditional diplomatic norms.
• Jesse Hirsh and Allan Gregg emphasize the importance of recognizing the implications of Trump's behavior on international relations, particularly regarding NATO and Ukraine.
• The media spectacle surrounding Trump's interactions with Zelensky illustrates a new era of public diplomacy, where media narratives dominate over substantive discussions.
• The episode discusses how the treatment of Zelensky may galvanize European leaders to reassess their support for Ukraine in light of Trump's unorthodox diplomacy.
• The hosts reflect on the potential consequences of Trump's actions for the geopolitical landscape, suggesting that they may embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide.
• In analyzing the ramifications of the Trump-Zelensky encounter, Hirsh and Gregg argue that this moment signifies a critical juncture in the evolution of global diplomacy and international alliances.

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsh, and I'm here with my friend Allan Gregg, and we're back for another episode of Red Tory.

And you'll notice, Allan, that the automated audience is back, because guess what I found out when I removed it during our episode on Monday, is the copyright police struck our episode. Uh oh, and here's the weird thing. That song, that is our intro, it struck in Russia, of all places.

So for reasons I could never explain, it means that our content, when we get struck, is not available in Russia. And I think today's episode is so important in the Russian context that we want anyone who's there to be able to access this particular conversation.

So hopefully that automated applause track will do the trick to obfuscate the copyright. Speaking of which, Allan, what do you want to talk about today?

Well, I think we do have to talk about Zelensky in the. In the White House.

I also want to talk a little bit about the Ontario election, which we just had yesterday, because I was following it fairly closely, writing a regular column for the Toronto Star, and basically saw something there that I've never seen before in Poland. So we can get into that as well.

Right on. And this Zielinski stuff, which I try on a good day, I take a nap every day after lunch.

And when I woke up today and sort of looked at TikTok, every single TikTok was a different aspect of this. I don't know what to call it. A spectacle. It wasn't a press conference. Like, how would you describe it? What are we looking at here?

Well, first, you can't believe that it was spontaneous, that this had to be part of the strategy that Vance and Trump were employing to basically browbeat and humiliate Zelensky and demonstrate that they are in charge and they are unrelenting. That said, if someone behaved that way in your living room, you throw them out of the house. So, again, just continues to flabbergast on all fronts.

And what this will mean in substantive terms, I mean, who knows? I mean, Zelensky may get on an airplane and say, that's the end of that. I'll try to figure it out myself. But I'm not going through that again.

I don't know what happened to the mineral deal as a consequence. It's not clear at all. I can't believe there's a happy ending there. And you?

Well, I think to your point about his flight back home, I think all eyes now are on Europe and whether Europe both recognizes this for what it is, which is a seismic shift in diplomatic relations and whether they want to rally behind Ukraine and say, look, whatever your choice is, Zelensky, we'll back you. It's important that we stand up to Putin, that we stand up to this aggression.

But I also felt on a media level that to your point, this was a very staged media event, and all week as world leaders, and this goes back to even when Netanyahu and Trump did that surreal Gaza announcement, that Trump really is a media guy, a media leader, and he's really trying to create these moments. He had this line today near the end when you could tell that Zelensky was just. His whole face was saying, what the fuck?

And everyone in the room was kind of short of breath. Trump just goes, will this get high ratings? Everyone will watch this.

And it speaks to his motivation, it speaks to his bully pulpit and the way in which he is so comfortable, so confident in his media abilities, and even picks his cabinet members based on their media skills. That diplomacy is not going to be behind closed doors.

It's not going to be like the old days where you had these summits and the leaders would come out and give these platitude, meaningless statements. It's happening before our eyes. He's trying to do it right front.

And center, and he's there every day. I mean, you're, you're absolutely right. I mean, it's, it's under lending.

Whether he understands, you know, the, the substantive implications of that kind of behavior, I don't know. I don't know whether he wants Europe, as the new elect.

Chancellor is saying, to do everything they can to, you know, isolate themselves from, from the United States, because I think we've talked about this before, is that, you know, world leaders are taking this seriously as much as they are confounded by it. Increasingly, they are saying, this isn't a joke. You know, there's something here about this.

Canada's 51st state, you know, will we be able to rely on the United States as part of NATO? And if not, what does NATO look like? And they're.

And then that far and further down the road saying, okay, well, let's talk about the reconstructed NATO.

And the other thing that has happened as a consequence of this is that virtually all of the European countries have in their own minds saying, we've got to up our military spending now to about 3% GDP, over a 50% increase of what they were playing for. That's just the price we pay for being part of this new world.

Well, not only that, but they're focusing a lot of that spending on domestic industry and domestic R and D, because they're not, they're not, they don't think they can count on the United States as a solid supplier, at least long term.

And I think the other dynamic of this to where you started is the kind of discordant realities we're seeing on the global stage, because where Trump is a very smart media operator, he has decimated his intelligence apparatus. He certainly doesn't have the daily presidential briefing anymore. And a lot of the people who could speak truth to power are gone.

He may be looking at what Fox News is covering. He may be looking at what the headlines and stuff, but to your point, he's no longer reading the same stuff that the European leaders are.

And I don't go ahead.

And you go back, for example, to Halverson's best and the brightest, where he talks about the people Kennedy surrounded him and how important that was in terms of unraveling disasters like the Bay of Pigs. And absent that kind of sober second thought at your, you know, at your elbow, no individual is going to make 100% of the right decisions.

And this guy especially doesn't have kind of the understanding or context or history to, to know the implications of a lot of the, you know, the disaster that he is kind of unleashing right now.

But even worse, my point is that he's in a kind of echo chamber where it's not even led by intelligence professionals, it's led by media professionals.

Because what I found partly shocking, and this is part of what I love about TikTok, is it's showing me this event, but from multiple camera angles and from multiple sources. So I saw some of the questions that were being asked by a very pro Trump media corps that was in the Oval Office.

And this one, the only word I can use is asshole, sort of goes to Zelenskyy. Why aren't you wearing a suit? Don't you think it's disrespectful that you come to the Oval Office not wearing a suit?

Aren't you disrespecting the American people? And of course, the reason he's not wearing a suit, everyone knows it's that he's at war and he's not going to wear a suit till the war is done.

So Zelensky's answer was really kind of.

Dressing like that every day for three years, right?

Like it was a really a canned answer. Like Zelenskyy's given that answer a hundred times.

But the stupidity and arrogance of the guy asking the question cuz he wasn't asking it for Zelenskyy, he was performing for Trump. He was trying to show the boss, he was trying to show the big man that I'm one of the good ones, make sure that I get to be part of the press corps.

And that's where I kind of wonder at as this destruction happens, because it will happen. The other side to this is the stock markets. The hedge funds are shorting Monday and Tuesday.

The stock markets in the US in anticipation of these tariffs coming in because they're expecting a crash. Right. Everyone is going, look, this is going to be catastrophe.

I wonder if his echo chamber, if the emperor's new clothes, the kind of everyone telling him he looks great is gonna insulate him a little bit from the chaos or at least give him the audacity to blame other people for the chaos. Because he doesn't have intelligence officials, he doesn't have professionals telling him what's going on.

He just has this media loop that he's fundamentally in charge of.

Well and you can guess that he will go on the offensive. I mean that's his whole modus for endeavor and that Cohen taught him that in the 70s and it's served him well throughout.

Attack, attack, attack, never relent, blame the, the other guy, shift the focus on, to onto something else.

But I mean you talk even about the, you know, the ass kissing of the journalist community and that's one of the other kind of guardrails in, in society.

And so now he's reordered who gets in to the, the Oval Office, who is part of the press pool now in a way that again is inconsistent with the Washington correspondents who, they protest right across, right across the board saying this isn't, this isn't healthy, this isn't, isn't good. So you, you, you wonder, I mean we all are starting to sound like, you know, crying ninnies here, but it really is just kind of beyond the pale.

And today was kind of the most beyond the pale that we've seen.

Well, and, and I don't, I, I definitely don't think that we are anywhere near crying as loud should or we could. I think where we have a certain amount of hesitation is as students of history, we know how bad this could get.

And we're still hoping for the exit, we're still hoping for the off ramp in some way shape or form. But I'm increasingly thinking it's important to sound the alarm.

Because the other to your point about the media part, I mean a lot of attention, rightly so has gone to the White House press corps and how it's being stacked with, with influencers, with MAGA influencers who aren't journalists, they're attention brokers at best.

But something that also happened this week that sort of flew beneath the radar of certainly the general public's consciousness is MSNBC had a huge purge, a huge slashing of staff, which from an economic perspective, I understand the media industry is certainly embattled, but the people that they chose to take off the air were essentially almost all people of color. And it goes into this kind of anti diversity backlash that's happening and where you would expect that to happen out of Fox News.

To see MSNBC kind of engaging in that makes me worried, makes me think, wow, there's not much there.

Especially at the very same time they seem to be doubling down on a, you know, more progressive news lens that they're going to look through and say that, you know, if, if this is what the landscape is like now, you know, having to speak to your audience as opposed to the general public, then I guess that's the lane we're, we're getting into. But as you know, you know, offsetting that with okay, if DEI is on the way out, then maybe we can follow suit.

I mean, you saw it again in Canada in, In terms of McCarthy Tegra, one of the biggest and most respected law firms in, in Canada, they've had a policy for the last three years of hiring summer students who are disproportionately black and indigenous. And they've just said, well, we don't think we're going to do that anymore. In keeping with the same kind of general.

And you wonder whether these people are saying we never really wanted to do this but felt it was politically correct to do it, or they actually thought it was a good thing, but now I'm going to get into trouble for doing it.

I mean, either way, they're sending a terrible message to a lot of people who are going to remember this, the ethic equivalent of Je mesouvien.

And I think the mistake here is this shortsightedness when instead there should be to your point of where Europe's head's at a much longer, longer view of how do we not just react to this short term shock, but how do we think about a new, more sustainable multilateral relationship, infrastructure, relationship, organizational resiliency, whatever scale you want to apply it to. I think for me, what this Zelensky moment marks is the shock has to end. We have to stop pretending that this is happening.

We have to start planning, reacting in a manner that is strategic. Because when you and I spoke last, we started with, hey, there's still a lot of people in denial.

There's still a lot of people saying, hey, this is bluster, this is negotiating. This is not actually authoritarianism.

And I think we're at a point now because the other, there's two sides to this press conference in addition to the media spectacle. One was the insulting behavior to your point that no one would tolerate this in their house.

This is not how you negotiate, this is not how you do diplomacy. But the other, and this is where Zelensky, to give him credit, is a very skilled politician, especially with the rare earth minerals stuff.

He kept going back to, you know, that is not for me to negotiate. That is for the Ukrainian people. Right? Like, you know, I can only do so much. The Ukrainian people are fundamentally like he had.

His language was very much infused into, I know my mandate. There's limits to that mandate. I live in a democratic society versus Trump's language was so blatantly authoritarian. Right?

This is what you're going to do. We're telling you what to do. You got no other choice. Do it because, because you like. And that's what's shocking.

See, I think there is still. You're right, there's uncertainty around, you know, whether this is authoritarianism, whether this is on the road to fascism or what have you.

But I don't think there's much uncertainty left on. We have to change that. This is not something that you can just kind of hope is, is, is going to, to go away. I mean, you mentioned the markets.

It'll be very interesting to see Monday and Tuesday because the markets right now are kind of still. All right. You know, are you really thinking that they're not going to bring in tariffs on, on, on the 4th?

And if you are thinking they are going to bring it there, why didn't you short the market today when it's at a much, much higher, higher, higher level?

So again, Canada, you know, being kind of a, you know, second world country in some respects, is in a really interesting kind of position that while, you know, many countries around the world view Canada very favorably and as a potential friend, we don't bring that much to the table. And there's always also argument. Last two decades we've kind of receded.

I mean, witness our inability to get a seat on the Security Council, you know, two go times in a, in a row at the, at the United Nations. But, and compounding that is that we are more reliant than any of these other countries. So it is very kind of odd, let's put it that way.

Yeah. And unprecedented in the same way that I like to joke that the problem with climate change is it's ahistorical. Right.

Our weather models don't hold up. I kind of feel that politically we're in a similar situation where our political models don't hold up.

History certainly has much to teach us and much to inform us.

We'll get into it in a bit, but I'm working on my post for tomorrow, kind of rethinking what Canada's radical response could be, what it should be, especially given how vulnerable we are to the types of actions that are taking place, but also because I think what Europe's doing is laudable, is thinking about a new kind of post American multinationalism, multilateralism, that I think Canada is very much welcome to participate in and on some respects, culturally ready for.

But what worries me, and we can sort of wrap our American part and shift to Ontario after this, but what worries me is the kind of Berlusconi effect of what we're seeing, that the Berlusconi model is very much similar to Trump, that it was a guy who had media expertise and who said really outlandish stuff and was, in his own way, kind of popular amongst his base for a very long time. And what worries me is that the way in which Trump's power is exercised will continue to be exercised is through the media.

And that's where I think Canada is really vulnerable, because so much of our media is American, so much of our thinking is American, so much of our culture is American. Doesn't have to be.

This is a great time to have a conversation about Canadian culture and how we could fund it and insulate it if Hollywood is cut off or whatever further escalation may happen.

But this is where I worry that there is a growing part of the Canadian population that would go, yes, I want to be part of America, especially given the cost of my groceries going up, especially given my vacation being ruined. But with that said, let me contradict myself.

I did write a post a couple of days ago about how Florida is on the verge of a real estate crisis, cause the snowbirds are listing their properties and doing it on Mass.

For sure, for sure. And you know, you're right to speculate. You know, if things got really bad, would sentiment change?

But right now, the sentiment's moving, you know, in the opposite direction.

And if you don't believe me, ask Wayne Gretzky, that, you know, I think part of it is because we share so much with America that there is this cultural change, he says, you know, and that in the incredulity over things like today's White House activity has taken on a whole cultural element. It's all, you know, how can you pick on Canada? I mean, we're the.

We're the guys who put the maple leaf on our knapsack so that everyone can wave at us and give us the high five and be nice to us. You know, why are you guys, of all people, being mean to us? And it runs contrary to our. Our very self image.

Although it does evoke to your point about Gretzky. I don't know if you saw him kvetching about how it's not his fault that he just wanted to please his friend Trump and he really does love Canada.

And Trump actually came out and defended him and was like, I saw that.

Yeah.

It really makes me think that we are at a moment in which courage and cowardice are gonna be really defining characteristics. And I don't think courage takes a lot. Like, it doesn't take much to be courageous, to speak out or to speak in favor of.

But I think, as in the case of Gretzky, it doesn't take much to appear cowardice and to be condemned and judged accordingly. And tough luck, buddy, you had an opportunity and you blew it.

And it'll be interesting to see how that plays out moving forward with other Canadians successful in America who are going to feel pressure.

And that's because the other dimension of this complete confusion is vindictiveness.

I mean, vindictiveness has not been part even, you know, Richard Nixon, you know, who had, I mean, when we got finally hear the tapes, you know, all kinds of grievances that he wanted to vent on various and subject victims. You never heard any of this stuff publicly at all or never any indication that that exists. This is on full display.

And clearly, you know, guys like Jeff Bezos are scared shitless of it. You say, well, you're second richest man in the world. You know, you have your own empire here. What could he do to you?

But clearly, and again, we've seen what he's doing now is changing the editorial policy, the opinion policy at the Washington Post, again, corresponding exactly with the desire to get court more favor with Donald Trump and the existing regime in Washington.

And I don't get that. I get that he wants to court favor, but why not just sell the Post?

Because in doing what he did with the Post, yes, he courts favor with the regime, but he makes himself look like an ass to everybody else for sure.

And I mean, again, there's a piece in terms of what's happening to Tesla car sales and also just more anecdotally, you know, people who driving Teslas, you know, putting on bumper stickers to kind of say, I don't like this guy, just don't, don't do this. Endorsement or vandalizing Teslas are occurring as well. So you're right.

I mean, there's a definite downside to ass kissing, but the extent to which being done is truly mind numbing.

Yes. And scary. Chilling. Absolutely chilling.

And that's where again, I think we have to be thinking not just about the long term in terms of how to prepare for this, but think about this is two threads which I think we'll file for future episodes. One's our ideology thread of mapping out what are the ideologies behind these oligarchs, behind Trump, behind this technology world.

But I think the equivalent to that is what is the counterculture, right? What is the culture that allows people to feel joy, to feel safety, to feel inclusivity and to feel defiance when this shit starts getting scarier?

Because what I feel, the sense I'm getting from our chat here is it is going to get more serious, if not economically, certainly in other aspects.

Well, I mean, you wrote about Gad Horowitz and I mentioned also that he was kind of one of my academic heroes when I was a young grad student.

And you know, he not only defined at the time the three dimensions that kind of defined ideology in, in Canada, but that they are diametrically opposite poles. And so the counterculture is going to form around whatever the, the cultural is of the new ones.

And some of the obvious dimensions that are at work now, I mean, are things as fundamental as optimism and pessimism. I mean, people, again, who are not, you know, as old as I am, would might find it stunning to know there was a time when everyone was optimist.

Everyone, because tomorrow was going to be better than today. And young people especially were optimist.

You mean Elvis isn't alive because there's.

Also a dimension that the tech bros are trying to push. And I don't know if it's chaos versus order or if it's kind of every man for himself ism versus a more universal versalism, a cooperativism.

But they're, they're clearly there is a dimension there that these guys embrace that I just don't know well enough to be able to identify at this particular point in time. But yeah, we should talk more about all of that.

And I think that to your point, the complicating factor is they see themselves as overthrowing one regime but creating another.

Yes.

Right. So it is on some levels a short term chaos followed by a new kind of order.

And I think it's the uncertainty as to what that order is or even if they'll be successful. To your point about the whether Trump will understand the chaos that he's unleashing, that's unfortunately part of the wait and see category.

And the cost of that wait and see is why if I did have money, I might be shorting the market today. But who knows? It's always a gamble and the House always wins.

Let's talk about Ontario before we come back to Canada as a kind of segue because I think they're connected.

And I'm curious both to hear your thoughts on a kind of big picture level of what happened, but you alluded to you saw a kind of unprecedented trend or insight that you thought was worth sharing.

Yeah. On a big level, there's not much surprise that Doug Ford was very opportunistic, very cynical, but smart in wanting to have an early election.

He wanted to have an early election to get before the feds went under. Any scenario, whether Trudeau was there, Whether Trudeau. Trudeau resigned.

The rise of and threat of Donald Trump gave him the ideal opponent and just made the other candidates kind of not there. And then it became an election, you know, about nothing, basically where nothing happened.

I wrote in the lesson learned here in in the Star that you know, and as a consequence he's going to get another majority and that Bonnie Crombie is going to win her seat in Mississauga and become the leader of official opposition. And Merritt Stiles is going to lose her seat in Davenport and exit Queen's Park.

And I said this because the polls were clearly showing that now The NDP were 10 points behind the Liberals. And we've talked about the porousness between the Liberal and NDP vote. And that means exactly as I predicted, that isn't what happened.

We got in last night and we looked and he said the holy mackerel, the NDP has got 29 seats and 27 seats and the Liberals have 11. How is that possible?

Well, when you start looking at it a little bit more depth and there are a number of reasons for this, but I think, but it's basically because, and this is what you never see before is that when there is a trend like that, a province wide trend or a nationwide trend, there's virtually no escaping it. It happens to different degrees and maybe different geographic areas, but it never is the case where it doesn't happen at all in some areas.

And in those 27 NDP ridings, it did not happen at all. Yeah, there was no diminution in NDP support.

Although to your point the numbers did match it though. Like the NDP got hardly any of the percent vote. They just had those writings.

The polls.

The polls were right, the pollsters were wrong because we were using a traditional yardstick of understanding how popular vote translates into seats and what you've got here.

And again I think possibly unique to this, the circumstances around this particular election, but incumbents actually ruled the day, is that these 27 NDP MLAs actually had forged a relationship with their constituents such that these constituents said, well yeah, I know the Liberals are kind of going up and they're more popular right now in the ndp, but old Bill here and old Sally, you know, we're just going to continue to, to support. That's something that we discount in, in, in modern politics that you know, incumbency really does matter and that you can forge that relationship.

And again, as a sample of one, I mean I live in an MDP riding in downtown Toronto and our local MLA is there at the flea market. Yeah, you know, he's there little league baseball games, he's very, very approachable. He's very. And it made a difference.

I was going to say, I'm not sure that's all incumbents. I think that's in particular NDP incumbents because the party is so broke that these individuals really have to work for their job.

Like they really need to be there in the community. And to their credit most of them live in interesting urban communities.

So I think they are really good at their job, they are really good at connecting with the community versus, you know, I really saw it as this is first past the post because you know, there were a lot of situations in which the Liberals had a lot of votes but just not enough.

And you say, okay, the NDP won three times as many seats as the Liberals. That's voter efficiency.

Yeah.

When they're 11 points behind and they win twice as many seats as their third party counterpart, that's not voter efficiency, that's incumbency. That's something.

As I say, what was happening elsewhere, look at the Scarborough writings, the six Scarborough writings, five ridings there the, that the NDP did not have an incumbent in. They've got just clobber down to single digits. The one seat that they had an incumbent in, big win.

So what was happening all over Scarborough, what is fairly monoculture in terms of socioeconomic and ethnic background was happening in five ridings. It was completely insulated in the one riding that had an NDP incumbent.

But here's part of my point though. All of those Liberal writings, a lot of those NDP voters would have voted NDP if they felt their vote counted right.

If they felt that they weren't voting against Doug Ford rather than for the ndp. And that's where I agree with you about the power of incumbency.

But I kind of feel that this whole Ontario election, as crafty as it was for Ford to call, was kind of a non event. I was impressed that voter turnout actually went up compared to the last one.

I was too.

Between the snow and just the fact that, you know, for it was fast even for, you know, all of his ascendancy in the polls, his personal favorability is not all that, all that great.

But these are people voting against Trump.

But when, when. Yes, exactly, exactly.

But when I also say that, you know, there may be factors unique to this particular election that made incumbency, as important as it appears to be, in as much as many Liberals and New Democrats exist to stop Conservatives from gaining power and they will vote strategically, Liberal or ndp. That Ford was going to win, I think was such a foregone conclusion. There was no prospect of stopping him.

So that kind of sense of strategic urgency wasn't there at all. And so, you know, I'm going to vote for my NDP guy or Dale because I really like them and that's the end of that.

Because the outcome is going to be what it is.

And I think the same is true on the party side because in my writing where again, the Conservative winning was a foregone conclusion. The NDP didn't even have a website, didn't have signs like it was a miracle that they got the guy's name on the ballot.

Like it does make me wonder about the future of these parties.

Although to your point, because Merritt Stiles won and Bonnie didn't, what are your thoughts on whether this these parties will discuss getting together? I still think culturally they're too snobby about it.

Yeah, you're absolutely. It's the leadership that is where there's a problem. I mean there's a reason for that.

The NDP voter and the Liberal voter are so porous and so willing to go back and forth and that's because they don't see a big difference between the two parties.

And again without sounding like an old fart, there was a time not that long ago when I was involved in campaigns where the NDP stood for nationalizing banks. They were adamantly against any free trade agreement, corporate welfare bums.

That was their slogan of David Lewis, Ed Broadbent, when he came to power, his entire speech at that convention was about having to curtail corporate power and how corporate power was the greatest threat to democracy. You don't hear any of that.

And in fact what I wrote in the piece that when in today is that while, you know, the leadership of the New Democrats and the Liberals would be outraged at the prospect of someone saying you should merge, the irony from a researcher's perspective is that there's tons of room on the center left in Canada for these guys to differentiate themselves and also to for electoral victory.

Because the support that we've talked about this before on a much more western world basis because the support for conservatives is not rooted in right of center ideology. It's conservatives to become radicals. Yes, population, population is sick of the system. Don't think the system's working for it.

New Democrats and Liberals look like they're defenders of the status quo because they come up with nothing, they stand for nothing. They represent no one uniquely any anymore. And the Conservatives are the guys who are going to rattle a cage.

Well, guys, guys, you know, smart enough.

I mean, help me well and not only smarten up but like, you know, pay attention. And I say this for three, for three reasons. One, a couple of episodes ago I mentioned that in my lifetime I've never seen bold political leadership.

The closest that was was Ed Broadbent, because I do remember Ed Broadbent having that kind of boldness while still a kind of jovial personality.

Well, let me give you one more perspective just on that because again, you know, I ran against him, I think three elections and Robin Sears, very good friend of mine back in the day where you're actually friends with people who are in the other party, ran the NDP campaign and he would fall into the same trap all the time.

Because you would look at, you know, Brian Mulroney's ratings and John Turner's ratings and Ed Broadbent's ratings, favorability rates and Broadbents would be three times higher.

Yeah.

Than the other guys. The NDP would go say, you know that Ed Broadband is a great leader of the ndp. You know that Ed Broadband, you know, represents people just like you.

Isn't it time you started thinking about Ed Broadband as the Prime Minister of Canada? Twitch reactions. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

That's not what we like him exactly where he is as, as the conscience of Parliament, kicking up shit. But that, that there's nothing the matter with that role. There's nothing the matter for that role for a jug meat sing.

But times are different now and that's where you could absolutely reframe that of, you know, and again I'm picking on Ed Broadband and then I want to make my point where you could make the argument that he's the Prime Minister we need right now. Right.

That you need that conscience in power, that you need that conscious, especially the way that the NDP always looked like the coalition people, the people who could bring together diverse groups and be the convener, be that kind of power. But 22 minutes had this really interesting sketch in the past week where they had the same actress playing, I keep want to say, Bonnie Crockin.

Bonnie Crombie and Merritt Stiles. Just one time wearing an orange blazer and the other time wearing a red blazer. And it was interesting, the skit of the two of them debating.

But the point they made, which is very powerful, is their policies are really not at all different. It was just the wording of the policies, the marketing, the sloganeering of the policies that were different.

And this made me think, and I want to phrase this to you as a kind of question, but really it's a problem and I don't expect you to have the solution, but maybe you do. I started thinking, well, what if, and this is before the election, what if the NDP were to dissolve?

Like what if the NDP were to say, you know, we don't have official party status, we're out of money, we just can't do this anymore. We're going to reconvene.

In the old days, Judy Rebik and her friends, you know, the Mel Watkins of the world, they would have been there in a moment with a radical left wing party, ready to get union support, ready to get all this lefty support. But today that wouldn't happen.

And the reason that wouldn't happen is not because the people aren't there, because I know the next generation of Judy Rebiks and I know the people who kind of have her politics and have her kind of energy that she did when she was the kind of person to organize a waffle or to organize an mpi, which was the waffle part two. None of these people are interested in party politics.

All of these people are interested in podcasts and in websites and in Patreon, and they're doing pretty good. I'm not disrespecting them in any way.

I'm just saying the younger generations are so alienated from politics, they're so disincentivized from politics politics that if there was a void in the left side of the political spectrum, I'm not sure a credible political party would form because the talent to do so is just checked out. Well, and that's a problem.

And that's, you know, it's become a cliche. I've said it so much is because we've destroyed the category.

The same way that, you know, the category of hamburgers would be destroyed if McDonald's said Burger King has E. Coli and BURGER King said McDonald's has botulism. But that's what, that's what we've been doing and as a consequence, driven up.

You're absolutely right. If I, young 18 year old who is really radical, really want to see some change, I'd go work for a union.

I'd go work for Greenpeace, you know, and thinking that I can make a bigger difference and feel better about myself when I look in the mirror and, and that that scares me as much as Donald Trump that, you know, when we stop attracting the best and the brightest to the political system, when that sense of, you know, public service is, you don't look at politics as the avenue and the vehicle for which you do exercise public service and pursue the public good, then you're in trouble. I mean, governments are not them, governments are us.

I do want to correct myself because after I said that, I realized there is in Quebec a young left wing party that in the Quebec tradition is very much focused on electoral politics, but outside of Quebec, not really.

And it would be interesting if the existential threat to Canada was such that it created that vibe of unity that we did start getting behind a Quebec based radical party.

Well, except it sounds like both a contradiction and counterintuitive.

But I would submit, admit that the electorate right now and especially young people are more radical than they've ever been, but they're not more right wing than they've ever been. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't support the right, either the electorate generally or young people as, as we saw.

But that goes back, I think, to what we were just talking about is because the conservatives are more ready to shake the system up than the left and the center left and the population wants the system shaken up. So start shaking center left because there's lots of, lots of room, lots of room there ideologically.

So let's kind of conclude or end by talking about Canada because I think that we are facing an opportunity in which those radical options are going to be not just viable, but necessary.

And I say this because I still think, while I do think Trudeau is a very smart individual on some levels, I still think they're underestimating the threat and I still think that the political class is underestimating the threat partly because on the one hand I don't think it's going to come down to a military occupation.

But on the other hand, I think they underestimate the extent to which this is a media war and the economic damage is just collateral damage that I'm not sure he's going to care about. And the example we keep coming back to and I keep seeing other people come back to is the auto industry. And he focuses on the auto industry.

He keeps, like he, I think he fully understands how fucked they're going to be.

And I think he's just either A making the demand that they must move all production to the United States, that this is, I think this is de facto the end of the auto pack, the end of the North American auto pact as we know it, or B, he is so arrogant at the idea that we will be part of the United States and therefore the cross border production is not going to be outside of the US because it is going to be part of some economic trade zone or whoever the transitionary period goes.

So again, we've talked about this previously, but I kind of feel the Zelensky incident today changes the tone of the diplomatic rhetoric coming out of Washington. So I'm, I'm curious to hear your.

Thoughts, but it harkens back to the first part of the conversation. Does he really fully understand the consequences of what he's doing?

Because you continue on the auto industry, you consolidate all production in, in the United States and what would happen is that the cost of vehicles were almost double and BYD in China is making EVs now for $16,000. And their industry globally, because it is a global industry, would be just in the dumpster right away.

And you know, I if this guy is transactional as everyone claims and winning is what matters, to be seen as a loser, to have made a massively bad decision is something I think he would have tough time to live with.

I don't do not think his purpose is so well defined and so grandiose and so obvious to him that he would cope with a stock market that was in the dumpster or would cope with an industry that everyone said, you know, he had destroyed that Jamie Dimon got up and said, you know, this is, this administration did this right now and decreased our GDP by 7% as a consequence of doing this.

So let alone the pensions, like how many Americans have savings or pension tied to the automakers? I mean at least in Michigan that's a ton of people. But I'm sure that's true throughout the U.S. absolutely.

And this is where again the evil voice in my head wants to believe you, but thinks that he does know that the auto industry is just too powerful an example.

It's too easy to explain to the point of these parts that go back and forth across the border so many times that you couldn't count it that the accounting cost of calculating the tariffs alone, right. The auto industry is just going to shut down. They're just going to say no, sorry, we can't produce until this resolved.

Unfortunately we got to shut down production as raising the stakes in hopes that he folds. But what if again to take him seriously, what if he wants continental integration and he will use this kind of chaos to impose it on people.

Cuz this is going to hurt Canadians like the auto industry shutting down is. It's going to have a huge impact on southern Ontario, I have to assume, let alone the other chaos.

That's what the thesis is.

The thesis is, is that if you can make the existing reality more repugnant to the electorate than the proposed reality, which is the 51st state, then maybe the 51st state becomes more palatable compared to the, compared to the other option.

I just, you know, whether Canadian leadership, you know, is underestimating the seriousness or they overestimate or possibly maybe understand better than you and I do is the influence and power that we actually do have to create a fairly serious damage to the US Economy if there truly is retaliation, if there truly is a concerted effort at a new multilateral relationship that says we cannot rely on these guys. And half of the world says exactly the same.

I mean, if John Trump thinks that somehow he's going to have some partnership with Russia and China, I mean, he's got another thing coming there. So if they'll be the only ones who are left.

Yeah. And that's where, again, I do have confidence in the rest of the world. You say 50%. I think it could be more than 50%.

I think what we could be witnessing on a reputational level is the fastest trashing of an already soiled reputation in the history of anything.

If the Roman Empire fell over time because of infrastructure and military, could the American empire fall rapidly because of culture, because of reputation, because of trust? That is a viable hypothesis on the table. If I was in grad school, I'd be writing that paper right now.

But to your point, I think it comes back down to the courage of the Canadian leaders, of European leaders, of Canadian business, and how quickly some industries, I think, could easily pivot. Other industries may be royally fucked. And that's what worries me.

And in the United States, to go back to the Zelenskyy conference, it's the obedience that worries me.

It's the amount of people who are not going to rebel against this guy, who are going to make up some delusion as to why they should suffer through this chaos when it's preventable. Right. When we could find a better way, we could say, thank you, Mr. Trump, we agree the world needs to be renegotiated.

Now get the fuck out of the picture so we can do so without the threat of violence.

But is the same equation we've been talking about can occur to those who are right and now compliant that the threat of Trump retribution will become less onerous than the threat of losing the auto industry in Michigan and Ohio, in which instance they would say, you know what? I don't care if I lose my primary, because if I lose this entire auto industry and I'm seen as being compliant and complacent while this is.

Is going on, I'm going to lose anyway. So maybe let's just save a little bit of my dignity and maybe have at least the workers thinking that I'm looking after their. Their back. So.

And I know you think I'm Pollyannish on all of the side.

No, no, I. Schoolboy. But to your point, it only takes five of them. And if you had 10 or 15, like, that's, that's, that's huge. And, and that's where I hope that.

And I don't mean to say this cynically, but that's where I hope the truly corrupt side of American politics does its thing, right? So that the industries in Michigan, the industries in Minnesota, the industries in Washington state, the.

Because it will be the states that are closest to Canada that will feel the biggest pain and will have Florida notwithstanding, because I think Florida is going to have its own pain as a result of Canadians saying, go fuck yourself.

So I agree that that is possible, and I agree it only takes a few people who say, you know, I'll have a better career being a local hero than I would being some DC schlap. So I am hoping that that happens. I think there's high likelihood that happens again.

To be thorough in our political science conversation, the other danger is the MAGA nuts, right? That it's not just losing your job, that some people fear that they're losing their life, that they fear.

The interesting thing, a lot of part of this is that the Maganats almost seem to be completely marginalized in the whole conversation, in the whole debate. They're left Steve Bannon compared to Elon Musk. I mean, yeah, who's. Who's got more influence? Who's got a louder, louder voice right now?

But you also started to talk, you know, all these syncopants that have been pointed to executive positions for no other reason than they understand media, given that limited knowledge or anything, if there was any kind of significant opposition rising up, trust me, they're not smart enough. They're not a Robert Reich. They're.

They're not Pete Vagudovich, you know, to be smart enough to figure out how to deal with that opposition, they would just basically point their finger at them and say, you're poopy pants. Poopy pants. And that would be the full extent of their strategy.

Yeah, I agree. And that's where to go back to our larger point of there's an opportunity now for fresh, radical voices and ideas.

I think it really wouldn't take much for someone who has courage and substance to become a focal point for a lot of hope. And if that focal point is a backlash, I think they would handle it fine.

Because to your point, I don't think that competence is there, but I will continue to be the voice of skepticism and say what worries me about the Potential for the Cabinet in particular to squash dissent is in their first cabinet meeting.

Elon Musk's prominence was not just symbolic because he is the surveillance army of the cabinet and he will be in a position to let them know who the whistleblowers, who the dissenters are.

So unless it is someone who is willing to get the media fame and power they deserve, they might be able to circumvent any of those dissenters before they have an opportunity to speak up.

But again, clearly they're kind of yesterday's news. But I mean, have you seen the crowds that Bernie Sanders is starting to attract on the stop the oligarchs?

Elizabeth Warren again had the same kind of town halls you think they had. They didn't have enough room for all the, all the people who came up. You know, Al Sharpton is doing. None of these people are my guiding lights.

But you know, he's doing for protests and boycotts on companies that are getting rid of DEI and actually supporting ones that are maintaining and bringing big crowds and having shoppers.

And so if those kind of yesterday newsy can tap into that kind of sentiment and there is someone, you know, and again, I'd like to see even younger than this, but a Greta Richmur, you know, who's got a vested interest to make sure that that auto industry doesn't go and understands blue collar workers understands, you know, mainstream America could get out there and start rattling the saber. I think these guys might find themselves with their finger between their collar and their neck a lot. They might realize.

I agree.

And someone else who I may or may not have mentioned on the podcast before, who you should keep an eye on is Jasmine Crockett, who is a young congresswoman. And oh boy, is she on fire like she again, she's pretty new. And where is she from?

There's one from Washington state too, is really impressive. She runs a, runs a garage or body repair shop.

Unfortunately, I need to know where she's from. I only recently followed her on TikTok. So TikTok's showing me all her barn burners.

But there's a bunch of young congressional Democrats who I think given the right platform, given the right opportunity and to your point, the Bernie's of the world are organizing out there as well. So I think there's much to look forward to.

And to your point, I think we already are seeing a lot of protests in American cities and I think as the weather gets more hospitable, we're gonna see a lot more and we're gonna see A lot of people out in the street, at the very least, as a therapy measure, cuz it makes people feel good and less helpless and like they're with their community.

But I think people are outraged and pissed off and how this plays, like for sure, you know, Trump is gonna vilify and demonize and maybe even mobilize, you know, police and military. But to your point, they, this will play in the media differently.

And, and I think this could shift the media narrative back to the counterculture, back to the opposition to all of this in a very positive way. Because Jane Fonda, I don't know if you saw Jane Fonda gave a talk, I think it was at the Golden Globes, but it was in the last week and she.

It was incredibly powerful, the whole room, you couldn't, you know, you couldn't hear that. You could drop a pin. And her basic argument was, you know, you've seen those gripping documentaries. Well, this is it. We're living in it.

This is our documentary. And I'm waiting for a lot of the creative types to really start pumping out some cool radical culture.

Well, and we've talked about civil society.

You know, a lot of the politics of the, the post Nixon air was, you know, generated by the hippies and the counterculture music that was, was going on there. Country Joe and the Fish, Hell no, we won't go. You just wished it wasn't all the stuff. The Voice were in their 80s as they are.

But we started with Zelensky in the White House.

And it'll be interesting because the other thing that, you know, we've seen, that I've seen many, many times, is it's, it's quite surprising how people come to judgments because they internalize all kinds of things that they can relate to. The very fact that this whole episode was so undignified. It's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out.

Yes.

People who say, you know, well, yeah, he's shaking stuff up, but I don't want someone who's that rude and that awful to be my leader. Yeah, it's one thing to say, I'll grab their pussies, which is an abstract thing. It's quite something else.

Invite someone into your house and treat them like that in front of strangers. And that's something that is relatable for the average person. And I say often it's these.

I remember again, you know, doing focus groups on David Peterson, former Premier of Ontario, and there are people saying all of these incredibly positive things. I think he's a really hip guy. I think he really cares about me. Seems very modern and, and we kind of get against. Why do you think that?

He said, well, just look at the way he wears his tie. It's never done up all the way to the top. It's kind of half undone all the time.

And that was a major part of what a lot of these people were, forming judgment and, and creating a great lusty narrative about what kind of person he was based on that tie. So, you know, never kind of underestimate how people come to judgment sometimes.

And well, this could be, to your starting point, this could be a bit of a turning point we should watch.

Well, and I think it's seismic. I think where it turns is the issue. And what worries me is a lot of people already know who Trump is and what his style is.

But I think to your larger point, this is going to change diplomacy as we know it. I think this was unprecedented, especially because this is a wartime leader.

And that level of disrespect, that level of belligerence in the context of war is also generally rare, even amongst opponents, for crying out loud.

And I think to your point, that may have, because you a few times rightly so, pointed out the age dynamics and we do in future episodes do need to get into the generation kind of divides that are playing into politics. But the reality is most voters are older. Most people who are engaged in politics are older.

And I think the reason the Bernie's, the Jane Fondas and the other people of a certain vintage are active is they understand history. Right. History is a big delineator in how people are interpreting these events.

When I spoke to the graduating class at University of Windsor in the summer, I said, you know what, I'm 73 years old. What could I have in common with the 23 year old, 21 year old? And I said, no.

Well, when I was going to university and then, and then all of the, the riots broke out on campuses around, around Palestine. You know that my generation was steeped in radicalism.

Yeah.

And you know, maybe they'll put their little grandson on their knee and kind of give them a little talk about what, what the, what the world really needs right now.

So. Well, and to your point about Windsor, like, how many times did Detroit burn in the 60s and 70s.

Oh, unreal.

Yeah. Right. And that you that that history is often forgotten. Will it burn again this spring and summer? Only time will tell.

But I think that's a good point for us to end. We're back on Monday. Who knows what's going to happen?

But I think this next week is going to be a very pivotal point, certainly in North American history, assuming these tariffs come in. But even if they don't, I think we are facing history as it happens. So tune in to red Tory on YouTube, on your audio podcast networks.

No shortage of no shortage of gruel, that's for sure.

Yes. Yes. No doubt. All right. Talk to you soon.

Take care.

All.