Navigator logo

Category: Chairman’s Desk

If Joe Biden really wants to stop Donald Trump, he’ll get out of the way

Posted on by

It was over before it began.

Thursday night, U.S. President Joe Biden lost the moment he walked onto the CNN stage. He moved like an animatronic from Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. He spoke softly, like a hoarse ghost. He looked down — like someone who didn’t know where he was.

If there is one sound Americans will remember, it will be that of their President struggling to find the words that just didn’t come.
And if there is one image that will be seared onto the collective psyche of the American imagination, it will be the look of fatigue and bewilderment cast across their President’s face.

Joe Biden’s candidacy is over.

It will either go down in a fireball of defeat on Nov. 5 — taking many “lower ballot” candidates with him — or President Biden will do what’s right for his country, his party, his family and, quite frankly, himself, and resign as the Democratic nominee by the time the last Independence Day fireworks disappear from the sky.

If the way Biden walked on stage was the indictment, the following exchange was the final verdict.

Biden: … Making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary … person … eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the COVID — excuse me — with — um — dealing with everything we have to do with — look — we finally beat Medicare. (Anchor interjects)

Trump: He’s right he did beat Medicare; he beat it to death.

That was not the only Biden bluster. And it was far from the only Trump savaging.

Joe Biden’s performance Thursday night came up well short. He was wide of the mark on every metric that matters.

On the economy, he failed to convince Americans he was working to make life more affordable and to explain what was wrong with Trump’s vision. On Afghanistan, in which Trump hammered Biden on the embarrassing withdrawal, Biden failed to point out that it was Trump who made the exit deal with the Taliban in the first place. On abortion, this election cycle’s equivalent to a “get out of jail free card” for Democrats, he failed to directly and persuasively speak to women voters about what a second Trump presidency would put at stake for them.

On golf, well, don’t even get me started. All I can say is both men deserve an Academy Award nomination for best impersonations of seven-year-olds at recess.

And if all of that wasn’t horrifying enough, this shambolic performance allowed former president Trump to do what he is a master at: lie, dissemble, conflate; to get away with the symbolic debate equivalent of “shooting people and not losing any votes.”

But worst of all, Biden never told the American people how, exactly, they would benefit from a second Biden term.

This was a glaring indication of a campaign — and a candidate — fundamentally lost.

Remember, it was the Biden camp that wanted this debate: at this surprisingly early time, on this stage, with muted microphones.

They did so because they knew they were down: in crucial swing states, with disengaged voters, with younger voters and with African American voters.

But little did they know what down was. That is until 9 p.m. last night when they found out that it is a place from which there is, for their team, simply no way back.

I’ll spare you more pile on. Biden deserves better after a lifetime of public service.

And I’ll spare you the lengthy campaign strategy lecture that underpins this advice.

But of this I am certain: If Biden really wants to defeat Trump, he will get out of the way. There simply isn’t a minute to wait because the value of such a withdrawal is logarithmic. The truism says, “go to end game as fast as possible.” After all, you are going there anyway.

I know because I’ve been there before from my years of experience as an adviser on municipal, provincial, and federal campaigns here at home. I’ve been in the room alongside headstrong candidates, who — after a self-inflicted blow — are coddled by members of the inner circle attempting to justify the unjustifiable. My only regret was not saying what needed to be said as early and often as necessary: that there was no coming back.

I understand well that the options in front of the president are as lousy as they are unfair. But he is where he is. And the only way he can recover a modicum of respect is to follow those great leaders who have gone before him and not only put country before self but done so at the expense of self.

Olivia Chow’s greatest vulnerability? Her friends

Posted on by

Imagine the confusion.

Toronto’s most labour friendly mayor in recent memory and still — a major strike that would have paralyzed this city. Or, as Mayor Chow put it, wrought “huge, huge economic damage.”

Sometimes in politics, success rides not on the platforms you pronounce or the policies you deliver, but on the bullets you dodge. And a TTC strike would be about as destructive a bullet for Mayor Chow to duck as can be conceived. Because while the political confusion and upheaval that would have followed is challenging to predict, the wrath of Torontonians would not be.

Already faced with a congestion nightmare, a housing crisis and high crime rates, the inability to commute to work or an urgent doctor’s appointment would have amounted to an unbearable degree of frustration. Make no mistake, that frustration would have turned to outright anger and Mayor Chow would have borne the brunt.

To deepen the political trap, provincial sources made it crystal clear they would have only drafted back-to-work legislation at the request of the Mayor.

But Olivia Chow never let it get that far — stepping right over this trap. As she acknowledged in the days that followed the last-minute agreement, she wisely set aside enough money in her budget to account for this negotiation. And behind the scenes, she undoubtedly used her political capital with the union in a way that John Tory never could.

This win, therefore, is as good an opportunity as any to consider what lies ahead and what avoiding this catastrophe reveals about her future.

Let’s start with the pure political numbers.

At the outset of her tenure, Her Worship’s popularity was nothing short of stratospheric, fluctuating between 71 per cent and 75 per cent approval. Since the budget this February, those numbers have predictably returned to earth. But while the honeymoon may be over, her approximately 50 per cent approval today is still impressive — especially considering how negatively Toronto residents continue to view the state of the city.

To be clear, I believe she’s earned that approval. Far from the harbinger of doom her opponents promised she would be, the Mayor has proven to be an effective leader. So, credit where credit’s due: she has expanded affordable housing, improved public transit, taken steps to enhance community safety and services and advanced various climate action initiatives.

More importantly, overall, there still persists a strong sense that she is a breath of fresh air, an antidote to the status quo and someone with the ambition and determination to actually turn this City around.

But politics is an unfair sport and if she is not vigilant, that sense will disappear overnight. And it’s now, when the Mayor is in a position of relative strength, that she must assess her greatest vulnerability.

Matt Elliot hit the nail on the head when he identified that to be exactly 30,735 — the number of City workers belonging to CUPE Local 79 and CUPE 416 whose contracts expire at year’s end. These are workers who feel they got a raw deal last time out and who make our city “go”: they clean the parks, run essential programs, process permits, collect the garbage (need I say more?).

But the reason those 30,000 plus workers walking off the job presents such an existential challenge for Chow is not just the obvious furor and chaos that would reign as a result, but rather because it is a direct assault on the pro-union, labour-friendly Chow brand.

Put another way, her greatest vulnerability lies not with her enemies but rather with friends. In politics, as in life, friends have expectations and sometimes, regrettably, they’ll try and take advantage of you. And given the impossible fiscal situation Chow has inherited, she has zero wiggle room.

In other words, the math simply does not work.

But Mayor Chow’s path to re-election in 2026 will only remain open and clear if she can maintain her core base of support. This danger is the same one that faced Bob Rae provincially in 1995, when he lost his core base and subsequently his government after a crushing electoral defeat.

And it is only by finding a way to make the math work — to keep her friends friendly — that Chow will avoid a fracturing of her strong left-wing coalition and the ire of Torontonians whose eyes are watering from the smell of rotting garbage.

After all, that smell has a way of lingering and translating to dire political consequences. Just open the history books to 2009 and ask former mayor David Miller about that.

Canada needs to become a world leader in the AI economy but first we need to build public support

Posted on by

It’s a politico’s axiom that perception is reality.

Call it a rudimentary observation in a “post-truth world,” but if it weren’t so, we would be living in a very different world with very different headlines. Joe Biden would be in for a slam-dunk re-election victory based on what the hard economic data says is a booming U.S. economy.

Instead, Americans perceive their economy as a house of cards, and Biden’s corresponding polling numbers are worse than ever.

Point is: perception matters. It can swing elections, shape policy, steer national priorities and futures. And in my view, there is no greater question of perception when it comes to our national future than how Canadians perceive AI.

Any prognosticator, economist, hell even your local barista, can tell you it’s the future of our economy and that massive structural investments will be required in that future. Yet, for as much as that might seem as obvious as the summer following the spring, the perception of many Canadians around AI are fundamentally misaligned with the urgent need to go “all in” — to spend big and spend now.

In fact, our views on AI are shifting as the technology expands. According to a recent TECHNATION survey, a whopping 87 per cent of those polled expressed concern over AI stealing their job.

Let’s be clear: it’s fair Canadians are worried. As with all disruptive revolutions, the AI revolution will generate both winners and losers. And while that corresponding upheaval will complicate life, it doesn’t cancel what lies in front of us. In fact, it leaves us with a choice.

We can choose to pick grass and meditate on the cruelty of life. Or, we can choose to refuse to be left in the dust by our international competitors and seize the opportunity to make a strategic, generational investment in this technology, investment that depends on two major steps.

Step one: establish a super Ministry of AI to shape an aggressive investment strategy to ensure we pull ahead. While this idea is not new — several of our competitor nations have already brought this idea to life — neither is it too late.

The mandate of this new ministry would be both crystal clear and precise: ensure Canada has all the necessary ingredients — chips, energy and talent — to be a global leader in AI.

Step two: we need to invest, as a foundational step, in public support for the endeavour overall. Why? Because the only way a “Manhattan” or “Apollo” AI mission will work is with the support of Canadians.

The level of cash necessary to build out our AI economy — to fund the data centres, refine the rare earths, and generate the power — cannot be met by the private sector alone. Governments must become partners, which means government must make monumental, unprecedented outlays. Outlays which will require them to say no to important immediate priorities and yes to strategic investments that will pay dividends well outside electoral cycles. Decisions that will require the expenditure of political capital.

And that’s why we need to change how Canadians perceive the absolutely necessary advantages of AI.

That effort will have nothing to do with lecturing Canadians on the intricacies of machine learning and everything to do with showing how AI can allow Canadians to take better care of their aging parents, curb the amount of time they spend in traffic, and reduce wait times in the ER.

Simply put, you can’t ask Canadians to believe in and invest in the long-term without bringing them along with you. So as much as we invest in chips, energy and talent, we need to invest in building genuine and durable public support for the long and challenging mission ahead.

It is only with and through that support that we stand any chance to catch up, become competitive and win this race.

Democrats are running out of time as Donald Trump’s troubles are only making him stronger

Posted on by

If there has even been such a thing as the world’s greatest circus, this is surely it: the trial of Donald J. Trump.

And just when you thought it could not get any more pathetic, lurid, absurd, crazier or demeaning (have your pick), this week a new clown car rolled on in: crammed with Trump’s cronies, allies and most significantly, potential running mates for the 2024 general election.

It appears Trump is determined to make his VP selection resemble the latest season of “The Apprentice.” This week’s tasks included assailing the judge’s daughter and attacking witnesses. A ceremonial ring kissing doesn’t capture it. When you consider Trump was content to feed Mike Pence, his last VP, to the wolves on Jan. 6, it’s more accurately described as auditioning for the role of sacrificial lamb in the school play. Let’s pray the curtain never opens.

Now, I usually share the view of most pundits that VP selection rodeos are nothing more than a sideshow to the main act. In most cases, fair enough.

In this case, not even close.

If Trump is elected, he will be a lame-duck president — unable to run again — and whoever he chooses as his VP will have an inside track to becoming the next president. Meaning: the stakes could not be higher.

What’s more, if Biden (a former VP himself) wins he won’t be permitted to seek another term either. Combined with the increasing likelihood that he won’t be able to last a full second term, that puts a renewed spotlight on Kamala Harris.

The 2024 presidential race will primarily come down to six battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — all of which Biden won in 2020. While he need not win all six again, his path to victory is severely obstructed if he cannot hold on to most. Yet, this past Monday, a New York Times/Siena College poll found that Trump was ahead in five of those six states.

What does this mean for the VP X-factor? Everything.

If Trump selects a VP from one of these key states, that will go a long way toward locking it up. Moreover, a wise, more centrist choice might give Trump the bump he needs in these states — most of which only narrowly went blue last time. Overall, so long as Trump does not choose a noted dog-killer (seriously) his selection will likely be a major asset to his campaign.

What does this mean for Democrats? It’s time to wake the hell up.

The fact is, a trial about Trump’s alleged hush money payments to a porn star has not damaged his standing in the polls one iota.

Rather, he is pulling ahead.

The morality play is a bona fide crowd pleaser and its production is not damaging but empowering its protagonist.

And that means Democrats simply cannot continue to cross their fingers and hope the justice system takes care of their problem for them. The irony here is palpable. Were the conspiracy Trump is peddling true — that this entire trial is a political witch hunt concocted by a Machiavellian Biden in a DNC backroom — it would be achieving the exact opposite of its intention. Tantamount to fighting fire with gasoline.

And yet, instead of providing the Democratic ticket with a much needed shot in the arm, the current VP instead offers a unique disadvantage — with analysis by FiveThirtyEight pegging her approval rating at a historically abysmal 38.2 per cent. In other words: she’s a liability, not an asset.

But that is far from the Democrats’ biggest worry. In a week meant to spotlight the moral deficiencies of the Republican candidate, the Democrats’ electoral vulnerabilities were underlined with crystal clarity.

If there was any doubt left, this trial definitively proves the Trumpian media circus is alive, well and works only to his benefit.

This means one thing and one thing alone for the Biden/Harris ticket: desperate times call for desperate measures. They need to break out that war chest and start fighting like their backs are against the wall.

Because that’s where they are.

With six months to go, time is running out before the circus is the only show in town.

We are not having enough babies and that’s a problem for all us

Posted on by

It’s not rocket science.

Ensure families have access to affordable, high-quality child care and guess what? You get drastically better outcomes. Not just for kids, who get a fair start in life, but also for parents, who can return to the workforce far earlier and with greater confidence.

For those, like myself, who advocated for the national $10-a-day child care strategy for years, achieving these results was never driven by short-term political calculus. We understood that the true impact of this policy would unfold over decades, not just in months or years; that politics, at its best, is one generation making and keeping a promise to the next.

Alarmingly, of late, that promise has shattered.

Since the Government of Canada and all 10 provinces signed agreements to reach $10-a-day child care, demand has surged — far outpacing the creation of new spaces for it. In many regions, new families are now faced with mounting wait-lists of Kafkaesque absurdity. Your child graduated middle school? Terrific! A space at the local daycare just opened up.

What makes this failure even more concerning is that it does not exist in isolation. It’s part of a far wider trend of economic pressures facing young families. And that pressure has contributed to a plummeting national fertility rate, now at an all-time low of 1.33 children per woman.

The first step toward addressing this problem is acknowledging its gravity. Demographic math says that to replenish our population, the fertility rate must rise to 2.1 children per woman. Working toward that rate helps avoid the dreaded inverted population pyramid.

In other words, a structural imbalance that invariably leads to collapse, where we have too many retired seniors and not enough working age Canadians to fuel our economy. Japan is the textbook example, where experts predict economic doom due to a chronically low fertility rate and a ballooning elderly population.

But let’s be clear. Realistically, Canada’s fertility rate alone won’t be raised high enough to get the number of people we need — immigration will always be part of the conversation.

However, in light of the current immigration challenges facing our country, believing that we can rely solely on mass immigration to replace our population and ignoring our fertility rate is utterly nonsensical. It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a large hole in the bottom — no matter how much water we pour in, we’ll never achieve a sustainable level if we don’t first address the factors behind the leak.

The second step is framing this issue correctly. Although it cannot and should not be divorced from it, fertility is not solely a women’s health issue. Nor should our policy to address it be seen exclusively through this lens.

To acquire the correct framing, we simply need to listen — because young couples who want kids are telling us exactly why they’re not: they can’t afford it. The bottom line is that Canadians will either have no children, or less of them, if they cannot afford a home, let alone diapers.

Therefore, the third step must be to enhance incentives and support for fertility health care. Polls show a majority of Canadians support more incentives, such as tax credits, to encourage childbirth. However, these measures won’t count if couples can’t conceive.

On this front, we need stronger funding for IVF, which many Canadians rely on despite its high costs, particularly those in the LGBTQ+ community. While seven provinces, including Ontario, offer some fertility funding, substantial increases are crucial to boost our fertility rate.

We also cannot forget that male infertility rates have rapidly risen. And this lack of knowledge often results in the burden of male fertility unfairly falling on women.

The decision to have children or not is deeply personal and varies by circumstance, but Canadians who want children have been crystal clear: they need greater support. And in a year where the conversation has largely been about a broken immigration system, we have overlooked this crucial piece in our national demographic planning.

Addressing this oversight and bolstering support for young families are imperative to ensure the well-being of not only this generation but all those to come.