C- (but it's not too late to improve)

It’s grading season. I should be grading.

My life right now revolves around assigning letter grades to everything I see, so I woke up this morning ready to write a substack post giving this federal election a C-, at best.

But then I discovered that Andrew Coyne and Emmett Macfarlane beat me to it. (They had a two-hour head start, what with time zones and all. Someone add this to Alberta’s list of grievances!)

Like Coyne and Macfarlane, I’m deeply disappointed with the two major parties’ decision to fritter the election away by opening with competing tax cuts and mutual character assassination rather than focusing on the big questions facing Canada.

My recollections of the 1988 election have grown hazy over time, but I do recall the feeling that we had embarked on a nation-wide seminar on trade policy, as voters tried to make sense of what it would mean to enter into a Free Trade Agreement with the Americans. (1988 me thought it was a bad idea; 1990-2024 me thought it was fine; 2025 me is having serious second thoughts).

In any event, we should be having a 1988 election. Our two major political parties should be offering up their competing blueprints for addressing the existential challenge that we face from the insomni-maniac south of the border. Carney seemed to be off to a good start during his week as Prime Minister, as he signalled a shift toward alliance with Europe and reminded us that we have Antipodean allies as well. But he has lapsed into a traditional campaign, which does not meet the moment. And Poilievre seems determined to run the campaign he’s been planning for the past three years, changed circumstances be damned.

There are still a few weeks left in the term election, so it’s not too late. Throw away the traditional playbook and start offering Canadians a vision of how you will lead Canada through the worst crisis it has faced in our lifetimes.

***

Bonus feature: an evaluation of Danielle Smith’s rationale for “going into the Lion’s den” and helping the fascists raise money: F. Yesterday, Smith said that “they're going to have to roll me off in a stretcher before I will stop fighting for this province and our people” in defence of her decision to attend the PragerU fundraiser. Smith’s contention is that this is an opportunity to speak to the people who matter to Trump: those who are willing to pay $1500 to hear Ben Shapiro talk about how Canada should be turned into Puerto Rico.

The Premier, it seems, sees her decision to help this dubious organization raise money as heroic. She will tolerate whatever abuse Shapiro throws at Canada, perhaps laughing it off, and then will convince his followers that tariffs are bad. They will exert influence on Donald Trump, and everything will be better.

There are flaws in this plan. First, the whole setup may be a trap. Smith may find herself set up as Exhibit #1 in support of the notion that some Canadians wouldn’t mind being annexed. It’s not her intention, but what is she going to do if she’s sitting on the stage being portrayed that way? Get up and leave? Laugh it off?

Second, let’s assume that she is given an opportunity to “make the case” to the assembled Trumpistes. Can we point to any evidence that suggests that these are people who are inclined to weigh evidence carefully and reach reasoned conclusions?

Finally, let’s assume that some of the attendees are won over by the Premier’s charm and arguments. Excellent! Can anyone point to evidence that Donald Trump is likely to be swayed by the views of his supporters? Have the Republican Governors been able to dissuade him from tariffs? No, and no, I’m afraid.

At best, this foray “into the Lion’s den” will be ineffective. At worst, it will be humiliating. Don’t go!