Rebels

Today were the nationwide "No Kings" protests across the country. I don't have a lot to say about the protests themselves, but I am a little curious how the protestors selected themselves.

I assume that if I asked a typical protestor "Why are you out here holding a sign today?" the immediate answer would be "something something Donald Trump something something." But suppose I pressed farther. Even if you disagree with him, why take to the streets? Where did you get the idea that this was a good way to respond to bad politial decisions by those in power?

I assume that at some point, honestly, the answer would frequently be, "Well I've always identified as a rebel. I've always supported the Little Guy against the faceless machines that threaten to crush him. That's just who I am."

OK, that's interesting. Always? So ... when you were three years old? Eight years old? Twelve years old? In a few cases the answer will still be, "Yes, always." (And honestly, some three year-olds can be pretty obstreperous.) But in a lot of cases the answer will be something closer to, "Well of course I had a conscience from an early age. But I really learned to lean into my identity as a rebel when I was in college."

There were a lot of old people at the "No Kings" protests, especially compared to (let's say) protests in the 1960's, which were almost universally manned by the young. This means that a lot of today's rebels are my age, or even older. So I think I have an idea what their college years were like.

There was an assumption back then that college was the time when you rebelled against your parents. The Catcher in the Rye was almost quaint and old-fashioned by that time; but the basic message—that adults were phonies and there was no salvation in that world—was a commonplace. 

As an aside: I remember that my college friends assumed I must be conservative because I regularly wore a belt to hold up my pants, and because I wore socks under my shoes. (It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not!) Of course, they tolerated these eccentricities, because they liked me anyway. It also meant that when their parents suddenly arrived on campus demanding to meet "some of their friends," they always sought me out. Maybe my hair was a little too long, but I shaved regularly, I showered once a day, and I was never hungover or drugged out; so I could make a good impression.

Notice what this means. It means that a large fraction of today's rebels—especially the geriatric rebels, but I assume the same dynamic has molded the younger ones too—rebelled against their parents and "societal expectations" at exactly the time that society expected them to rebel. And they did it, largely, because all their friends were doing it. In other words, their lifelong stance or identity as a Rebel was in fact dictated by societal expectations. By standing out there on the streets holding signs, they are conforming to the most restrictive of the possible identities offered to them by their elders. 

    

Context is everything

I tried to post this on Twitter, but it's too many characters. And I won't pay for more, because that means admitting who I am in real life. (Or maybe I'm just cheap.)

I wanted to reply to a post that talked about the kind of invective used by the Left against George W. Bush back in 2000 and 2004. And what I wanted to say—based entirely on personal recollections and conversations with my own friends!—was this:

In 1980, left-wing Democrats said "Reagan is basically Hitler."

In 2000, left-wing Democrats said, "I'm not mindlessly partisan, and I don't blindly hate all Republicans. Old-time Republicans like Reagan weren't so bad. But Bush is definitely Hitler."

In 2016, left-wing Democrats said, "I'm not mindlessly partisan, and I don't blindly hate all Republicans. Old-time Republicans like George W. Bush weren't so bad. But Trump is definitely Hitler."

So I assume it's only a matter of time before left-wing Democrats start saying, "You know, Trump was a little goofy but he really wasn't that bad. On the other hand, this New Guy [whoever the New Guy happens to be] is definitely Hitler."

Context is everything.  

Quebec and her King

What's going on in Quebec?

Yesterday I saw a news item that the provincial legislature of Quebec had voted to "break all ties" with the British monarchy. You can find news articles about it in places like these:

• Globe & Mail, "Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously votes to break ties with the monarchy." [This article is behind a paywall.]
• CTV News, "Quebec legislature votes unanimously to cut all ties with the monarchy."  
• MSN, "National Assembly votes to cut ties with British monarchy."  
• Montreal Gazette, "Quebec legislators vote to cut ties with British monarchy after King’s visit."   

What I don't understand is, What does it mean?

None of the articles that I read sounded alarmed. So maybe I shouldn't take alarm either.But I can't stop thinking about it.

Legally, Charles Windsor is King of Canada. Surely the consequence is that as long as Quebec is a province of Canada—and as long as Canada remains a monarchy and not a republic—there will necessarily be some ties between Quebec and the monarchy regardless what the legislature says. Doesn't that follow? And therefore it seems to me that this measure can only be construed as an ultimatum: either Canada gives up the monarchy, or Quebec will give up Canada. Republicanism or Secession. That sounds like a stark choice to me.

Le chef du Parti québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon

Naturally there might be other options. Perhaps the measure can be canceled or overruled by a higher authority (like the federal Parliament). Perhaps it was intended as no more than a protest vote, and the Quebec legislators who passed it unanimously knew they would never have to stand behind it. Such things are always possible.

But if the measure is not quietly effaced, the other alternatives don't look so pleasant. Will the rest of Canada agree to renounce the monarchy? Recent polls suggest the monarchy is largely popular in Canada right now. Will Quebec then secede? They have threatened it for years. If they try to leave, how will English Canada respond? When South Carolina tried to secede from the United States in 1861, the result was a terrible, bloody war. I remember Pierre Trudeau's willingness to deploy the Canadian Army inside of Quebec during an earlier crisis, and so I cannot rule out that the threat of secession might end badly.

On the other hand, the Canadian government might decide they have no taste for civil war. They might let Quebec go. I fear that would be a grave mistake. If Quebec were allowed to secede peacefully, I would expect Alberta to follow them out the door in another couple of months. Next would be maybe Saskatchewan and Nunavut. And suddenly Canada would look a lot more fragile than before.

I remember back in 1990, when tiny little Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union. Everyone cheered. But at the same time the world held its breath, waiting for the tanks to come and squash the fledgling independence movement. 

And no tanks came. The USSR decided to let Lithuania go. They were so little, after all.

Yes, they were a tiny pebble. But such tiny pebbles cause great avalanches. In less than two years, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.

I wonder if Canada will follow the same path?