Trump

Syrian doctor affected by Trump travel ban tells his story

ullahnor — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:52:56 +0000

Syrian doctor affected by Trump travel ban tells his story

ullahnor Fri, 08/18/2017 - 15:52

Cutline

Syrian doctor Khaled Almilaji greets his wife at Pearson Airport following U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban for Muslims. He was refused re-entry to the U.S. and offered a scholarship to U of T (photo by Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star/Getty Images)

Topic

Global Lens

Trump

Travel Ban

U.S.

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

Toronto Life features Syrian doctor Khaled Almilaji's story in his own words.

The Brown University graduate student found himself stranded overseas by the Trump administration’s travel ban. With his wife pregnant and unable to return to the U.S., the Syrian physician was offered a scholarship to U of T for the executive master of health informatics program.

The couple were reunited in Toronto in June. As a recognized humanitarian who has worked closely with the World Health Organization and United Nations to co-ordinate the delivery of vaccines to 1.4 million Syrian children and provide health care in Syria during the six-year-long civil war, Dr. Almilaji's tuition is being covered by the university. Dr. Michael Dan and Dr. Amira Dan and other private donors have come forward to support Dr. Almilaji while he is in Toronto.

Dr. Almilaji, who was also featured on CBC's Metro Morning, will be studying at the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

“I know the travel ban is all about politics, not security,” Dr. Almilaji says in the article. “It’s a game. But the people on Trump’s list have been suffering for many years, and the ban only increases that suffering.”

Read the article

Bannon out: U of T political scientist reflects on chief strategist's exit

geoff.vendeville — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:21:05 +0000

Bannon out: U of T political scientist reflects on chief strategist's exit

geoff.vendeville Fri, 08/18/2017 - 14:21

Cutline

Steve Bannon, U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial chief strategist, at the White House earlier this summer (photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Author legacy

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

Subheadline

Trump 'lacking a way to herd the cats in the legislative process, and Bannon doesn't contribute to that one iota'

Steve Bannon, the Trump administration strategist and former editor of conservative website Breitbart, left his post on Friday, according to multiple reports. His is the latest in a string of departures from the White House, including former chief of staff Reince Priebus and communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

Bannon, known for being a white nationalist, is said to have pushed Trump toward his hardline approach on immigration and trade. Instead of distancing himself from these views with Bannon's exit, Trump may be preparing to “double down” on them, says U of T political scientist Ryan Hurl (left).

The assistant professor at U of T Scarborough explains what led to Bannon's depature and speculates on how it will affect the administration.

Steve Bannon was rumoured to be on the outs for a while. What was the straw the broke the camel's back?

That's a little difficult to say. One possibility was his rather unusual interview in The American Prospect, a left-leaning American publication. Bannon had a conversation with the editor Robert Kuttner, talking about a number of sensitive subjects including military strategy in relation to North Korea – not really the kind of thing you want to be discussing off the top of your head in an open interview.

He may have been talking to the press in an unthought-out way, or it may have been completely thought out. It's hard to know. It's almost as if Bannon was searching for the perfect straw to break the camel's back.

What did Bannon bring to the White House in terms of strategy and influence?

If you were President Trump, you would ask yourself: "What does Bannon bring to the table, given the kind of issues I'm facing now that I'm actually president?" The answer is, not very much.

What Trump is pretty sorely lacking at this point is a way to herd the cats in the legislative process, and Bannon doesn't contribute to that one iota.

Was his departure related to what happened in Charlottesville?

Is this in some way a response to [Trump's] bungling response to the Charlottesville incident, and the need to remove the taint of association with white nationalists? That could perhaps be part of it. I think Bannon disavows extreme right-wing nationalism. I think he'd say himself that he's not someone like Richard Spencer, who's drawing on a weird European Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger version of nationalism.

Nevertheless, there can be some kind of overlap [between Bannon and Spencer]. And it's not crazy of course that the Trump administration has been tainted by that association.

How will Bannon's absence change the policy direction of the Trump administration?

At this point, I don't think it's about policy direction per se. Of course with this president, who knows? In terms of any kind of policy direction set during the campaign, it's always a difficult question of how much is purely strategic, how much is off the cuff and how much is a long-term strategy as opposed to an electoral strategy.

I suppose it's a sign that Trump wants to back away from some of the unconventional commitments that he made during the campaign season. That is, unconventional vis-a-vis the mainstream Republican Party as represented by, say, Mitt Romney and John McCain.

“Perhaps getting rid of Bannon allows him, ironically, to pursue Bannon-like policies.”

Whether this politically makes sense for Trump, that's very much unclear.

Politically speaking, there's no reason for Trump to back away from some of the main positions that Bannon would have been associated with, which is to say immigration reform of some kind, immigration restriction, a more hard-headed perspective on questions of trade and a much more limited, less interventionist, quasi-isolationist foreign policy.

Those are all winning issues politically speaking for Trump. I don't see reasons why that would have changed. The problem was the association with the alt-right. Perhaps getting rid of Bannon allows him, ironically, to pursue Bannon-like policies.

The alternate position is that this is Trump becoming a Mitt Romney, John McCain-style Republican and that he's going to go in that direction. I don't really see a huge political upside to that for Trump. It's too late in the day for that.

What I would predict is that getting rid of Bannon is a prelude to doubling down on some of those policy commitments. What he perhaps realized is that Bannon doesn't help him achieve that. Bannon doesn't know anything about Washington or how the legislative process works.

There have been reports of infighting followed by high-profile departures lately from the White House. Will Bannon's exit steady the ship?

That's a very difficult question. It doesn't take a PhD in political science to see that Trump responds to some issues in an emotional, knee-jerk way. It is possible that he might have come to some realization after this week that presidential rhetoric and presidential demeanour matters. There's been a slow erosion of even his supporters, let alone people who weren't initially supporting him. He has to change the tone, find a way to work with Congress and reconnect with the broader public in some way. This could be the first step in that direction. Certainly, it's the only way for Trump to have a successful administration.

A constitutional crisis if Trump chooses to pardon himself: U of T law professor

ullahnor — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:46:28 +0000

A constitutional crisis if Trump chooses to pardon himself: U of T law professor

ullahnor Mon, 07/24/2017 - 15:46

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested pardons, including for himself, over probes into Russia's role in last year's election (photo by Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

When U.S. President Donald Trump asserted his “complete power to pardon” on Twitter last week, speculation erupted over whether he planned to pardon relatives, aides or possibly even himself.

Professor David Schneiderman of the Faculty of Law says that while the president does have the power to pardon aides and relatives, the ability to pardon himself is up for debate.

“There is no precedent – indeed, it would likely lead to constitutional crisis – for a president to pardon himself,” says Schneiderman, who is also associate professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts & Science.

Below Schneiderman speaks to U of T News about the constitutional law behind what is already becoming a highly contentious issue.

How broad is the president’s power to pardon?

The president has the constitutional power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The president cannot forestall impeachment proceedings nor can he issue pardons for violation of state law. Otherwise, the power is expansive and seemingly unlimited.

Under the U.S. constitution, can he pardon relatives and aides close to the investigation? Can he pardon himself?

The president can pardon aides and relatives. The interesting and unresolved constitutional question is whether the president can pardon himself. Constitutional opinion is divided. There is no limitation mentioned in the constitutional text other than “Cases of Impeachment.” If only impeachment is mentioned, can he pardon his own criminal conduct? The better view is that the U.S. Constitution is structured so that no one can be a judge in his or her own cause. This is a power, then, exclusively about pardoning others.

Do you know if there’s a precedent for this? Has any U.S. president ever been in a similar position and considered pardoning close aides or relatives?

There is not a great deal of precedent. The most notorious example of a president wielding the power to absolve a political ally is President Gerald Ford issuing a pardon to his former superior, President Richard Nixon.

Another example is George W. Bush pardoning former defence secretary Caspar Weinberger over the Iran-Contra affair. There is no precedent – indeed, it would likely lead to constitutional crisis – for a president to pardon himself.

U of T monitoring impact of revised U.S. travel ban

ullahnor — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:43:46 +0000

U of T monitoring impact of revised U.S. travel ban

ullahnor Thu, 06/29/2017 - 16:43

Topic

Our Community

Trump

Travel Ban

International Students

With a revised travel ban going into effect tonight for visits to the U.S., the ��Ƶ would like to remind faculty and students about supports available to them.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the revised immigration executive order, which took effect on March 16, would be upheld with the exception of foreigners holding “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

While visas already approved will not be revoked, the State Department said Wednesday that new applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States to be eligible. Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancés or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships, according to the guidelines.

“We will be monitoring developments regarding this ruling to assess its impact to members of the university community and beyond. We would like to take this opportunity to remind the university community of available resources to those who may be impacted as a result of the reinstatement of the executive order,” said Joseph Wong, associate vice-president & vice-provost, international student experience.

Students

For students travelling or planning to travel abroad who have questions or concerns, please call U of T's safety abroad office at (416) 946-3929. In case of an emergency, reach the 24-hour, collect emergency line via campus police at (416) 978-2222.

Faculty & Staff

For faculty, visiting professors, guest lecturers with questions, please email: faculty.immigration@utoronto.ca. Staff, research associates, postdoctoral fellows, please email: hr.immigration@utoronto.ca.

International Students

For international students at U of T's downtown Toronto campus who may have questions or concerns about their own status, please call the Centre for International Experience at (416) 978-2564 or email: cie.information@utoronto.ca. For international students at U of T Mississauga, call the International Experience Centre at (905) 569-4716 or email: international.utm@utoronto.ca. For international students at U of T Scarborough, please call the International Student Centre at (416) 287-7518 or email: isc@utsc.utoronto.ca.

See additional info

Trudeau at U of T: Canada and U.S. are “two countries that have grown up together”

lanthierj — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 19:06:58 +0000

Trudeau at U of T: Canada and U.S. are “two countries that have grown up together”

lanthierj Thu, 06/22/2017 - 15:06

Cutline

��Ƶ students greet the prime minister on his arrival at Rotman School of Management (photo by Lisa Lightbourn)

Jennifer Robinson

Author legacy

Jennifer Robinson

Topic

Martin Prosperity Institute

Rotman School of Management

Subheadline

Martin Prosperity Institute hosts talk with New York Times

In navigating the complexities of the Canada-United States trade relationship, it’s important for both countries to remember that “mutual benefit is the only thing that has benefit,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the ��Ƶ today.

With an estimated nine million jobs and a trillion dollars in trade at stake, the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) can’t be understated, he said in a sold out, 60-minute conversation with The New York Times.

The talk, which featured chief White House correspondent Peter Baker and Canadian bureau chief Catherine Porter, was organized with the Martin Prosperity Institute at U of T’s Rotman School of Management.

Trudeau entered Desautels Hall to the sound of cheers from students lined up on the pink staircase at Rotman eager to get his photo.

Once inside, he was jokingly described by Baker as “the Trump whisperer” as he was questioned about how his government is negotiating Canada’s relationship with its superpower neighbour.

As “two countries that have grown up together,” there are “massive levels of intersectionality” between us making it “extremely important for the prime minister and the president to have a constructive working relationship,” Trudeau told the packed room.

“He’s a businessman, a dealmaker. He’s someone who knows how to interact socially at a very effective level. And one of the things I’ve learned is he actually does listen,” Trudeau said of Trump.

“I can understand the laughter,” he said, reacting to the audience. “He will be open to shifting his position and that’s something we can definitely work with.”

As an example, Trudeau referred to a conversation he had with Trump a few weeks ago after news leaked the president was seriously considering tearing up NAFTA.

Trudeau said he told Trump that abruptly terminating the 25-year-old agreement would cause “tremendous disruption” to businesses, communities and workers on both sides of the border – but Canada was open to “renegotiating or updating” the agreement.

“There was an openness to that” by Trump, he said.

Instead of focusing on areas where they disagree, he said the two world leaders discuss issues on which they share common views. He also disagreed with a Times story that his government is using a “doughnut” approach to American relations by going around Trump to reach out to mayors, governors and business leaders to further its interests.

Read Canada's Trump Strategy: Go Around Him

“I think of it is as a bun – there is no hole,” Trudeau said, adding Canada’s “whole government” approach makes sense since states and provinces, not to mention industries and cities, have longstanding relationships with each other.

The talk marked the first major sit-down interview with Trudeau on Canadian foreign policy after a speech by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister (and U of T area member of Parliament) Chrystia Freeland to the House of Commons on June 6.

Freeland was among the notable Canadians in the room today, along with alumna and former governor general Adrienne Clarkson.

Although it was interpreted by media and experts as a significant change in Canada’s foreign policy direction in the age of Trump's more inward-looking, protectionist stance, Trudeau said “it was a bit of a sequel” to a speech by Louis St-Laurent in the 1940s that laid out Canadian foreign policy independence from Great Britain.

Canada will continue to chart its own path, he explained and “even close friends like the United States . . . don’t want Canada either to be or be seen as simply an extension of American policy.”

U of T President Meric Gertler, who officially welcomed the Times and the prime minister to campus, praised the Trudeau government for its “deft handling” of Canada’s “most important international relationship.”

“It has been very encouraging to see Canada reasserting its traditional role as a constructive, outward looking, globally engaged player on the world stage,” Gertler said.

“And this in turn is a source of hope for all those — including the citizens of our greatest friend and ally — who share our commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

Watch a video of the entire event below:

#UofTGrad17: Three things you should know about honorary grad Margaret MacMillan

ullahnor — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:41:38 +0000

#UofTGrad17: Three things you should know about honorary grad Margaret MacMillan

ullahnor Wed, 06/21/2017 - 09:41

Cutline

Historian Margaret MacMillan, now a professor at Oxford, has many ties to the ��Ƶ (photo by Colin McPherson/Corbis via Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Historian Margaret MacMillan has written extensively about international relations, imperial India and a variety of aspects of Canadian and world affairs.

The professor of international history at St. Antony's College at the University of Oxford is best known for her international bestseller Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, which won the 2002 Samuel Johnson Prize and the 2003 Governor General’s Award.

MacMillan has strong ties to the ��Ƶ. She completed a B.A. in Modern History at U of T as well as a B.Phil. She also served as a former provost of Trinity College and a professor of history at the university.

She returns to the university today to receive a Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, “for her outstanding service for the public good, as a public intellectual who brings history alive for the general public, both in Canada and around the world.”

She is among 16 people being recognized with honorary degrees by the ��Ƶ in 2017.

Below are three things you should know about MacMillan.

On Brexit

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, MacMillan, a great-granddaughter of former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, spoke to the CBC about how the vote will be remembered in history books.

“I think it might be one of those moments that we look back, and we say this was a turning point, that something changed. The United Kingdom became a smaller place,” she told the CBC.

“I think England may end up as England – they're going back to the size they were in the sixteenth century.”

And she wondered about whether the European Union would survive the U.K. departure.

“We may all look back and regret this moment.”

On Trump and Mussolini

She's described Trump as more Mussolini, than Hitler.

“He’s not a Hitler – he doesn’t head a fascist party – and the Republican Party is more and more divided by the day,” she told Oxford Today. “But I think he’s like Mussolini in wanting public attention and portraying himself as the great strong man, making grand gestures and searching for enemies. He’s a lot like some of the Latin American dictators like Chavez or Castro or Perón – claiming to speak for the people; loving the crowds… Making promises: ‘I will give you money and jobs’ – then blaming ‘our enemies’ when they aren’t delivered.”

Her Books

MacMillan has written Women of the Raj; Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, for which she was the first woman to win the Samuel Johnson Prize; Nixon in China: Six Days that Changed the World; The Uses and Abuses of History; and The War That Ended Peace.

From 1995 to 2003, MacMillan co-edited International Journal, published by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA).

Her most recent book is History’s People: Personality and History.

Prime Minister Trudeau to talk Canada-U.S. relations at U of T

ullahnor — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:54:31 +0000

Prime Minister Trudeau to talk Canada-U.S. relations at U of T

ullahnor Tue, 06/20/2017 - 13:54

Cutline

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to talk about his relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump, along with policy issues like climate change, trade and Canada's role in the world (photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Rotman School of Management

Subheadline

In conversation with The New York Times

The future of NAFTA, a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate pact, Canada’s emerging leadership role on the world stage – that's the backdrop for a conversation with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau taking place at U of T this week.

Is it any wonder that tickets for the event, co-organized by the Martin Prosperity Institute and The New York Times, sold out in just six hours?

“We’re in a unique time with [Foreign Minister] Chrystia Freeland’s recent speech in the House of Commons about Canada’s changing role and position in geo-politics,” said Jamison Steeve, executive director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at U of T's Rotman School of Management. “My hope is that we get a clear articulation from the prime minister of how he sees that role.”

The institute, a think tank that focuses on the future of democratic capitalism, is led by such internationally recognized leaders as Roger Martin and cities expert Richard Florida. The institute teamed up with the New York Times to host the June 22 event, titled Trade in the Balance: Canada-U.S. Relations. While Thursday's event is sold out, a live broadcast will be available from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker and Canada Bureau Chief Catherine Porter of the New York Times will be posing the questions and steering the discussion.

What can the audience expect?

Historian Robert Bothwell, a professor of international relations at the Munk School of Global Affairs, says Trudeau is in a delicate position: he can't succumb to provocations from U.S. President Donald Trump or to demands from Canadians to say something negative about the American leader.

“Poor Justin,” says Bothwell. “Obviously, Canada has been trying to have a rational response to an irrational phenomenon. Canadian-American relations in that sense are really not very good because they're not predictable. If the single most important person in the relationship seems to go off like a firecracker every morning at six, then what can we really do? In that sense, Justin's overall approach is admirable. It's difficult but admirable.”

Still, Bothwell says, it will be interesting on Thursday to watch Trudeau “pretzel himself” on the status of NAFTA and trade negotiations with the U.S.

“It's pretty clear the U.S. is going to want some visible concessions from Canada and Mexico to justify the hoo-ha that they've made about NAFTA,” Bothwell said. “They have to be seen to win.

“The U.S. hasn't had a complicated negotiation with anybody since Trump has become president. It's conceivable that negotiations could go on and on and on, with no immediate change in policy or status of trilateral trade. We don't really know how things will go.”

Political scientist Carla Norrlof, an associate professor at U of T Scarborough, expects Trudeau will emphasize the importance of NAFTA and the importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship.

“Given the U.S. trade surplus with Canada, and the president's mercantilist approach to trade, Trudeau knows he has a strong hand,” Norrlof says. “Trump may be an unpredictable blow-hard, but if NAFTA falls apart, the U.S. has an interest in negotiating a bilateral trade deal with Canada.”

On climate change, Norrlof foresees Trudeau will somewhat “soften his criticism of the U.S.” by underlining alternative paths to climate action and welcoming the progress the U.S. has made in developing clean energy fuels and technologies.

Freeland's speech on June 6 is also generating interest in the event.

Bothwell says he wants to hear what the prime minister has to say, especially with the growing rift between Europe and Trump.

“Trudeau and his cabinet have gone further than I imagined they would,” Bothwell said. “Chrystia Freeland’s foreign policy speech was really one of the best speeches that any foreign minister has given in the last generation. It really is a principled outline of Canada’s position and Canada’s objectives in foreign policy. What she said about the nature of American politics, and what we must expect and deal with in terms of the United States, I couldn't agree with it more.

“I’m hoping that Trudeau is going to follow that or take the same kind of tone.”

The event is part of a “burgeoning partnership” for the Martin Prosperity Institute with the New York Times, Steeve says. They collaborated on a similar event surrounding Canada’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis and private sponsorship of refugees back in May.

The world needs U.S. to participate in climate change actions: U of T political scientist

ullahnor — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:22:58 +0000

The world needs U.S. to participate in climate change actions: U of T political scientist

ullahnor Fri, 06/02/2017 - 10:22

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump announces his decision Thursday for the United States to pull out of the Paris climate agreement (photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Author legacy

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement faced sweeping criticism Friday as world leaders spoke out against what many fear will be a major setback in efforts to curb global warming.

Some of the fiercest comments came from Europe where leaders had made personal appeals to Trump to stick with the 195-nation accord. They affirmed Friday that the U.S. could not unilaterally renegotiate the 2015 agreement. French President Emanuel Macron, in a live televised address, said that “on the climate there is no plan B because there is no planet B.”

“The U.S. withdrawal is an opportunity for Canada to be a global leader on climate,” says Matthew Hoffmann, professor of political science at U of T Scarborough.

U of T News spoke with Hoffmann, who is affiliated with the Munk School of Global Affairs, about how, ultimately, the global response to climate change needs the U.S. to participate because it's the second largest producer of greenhouse gases.

What does this mean? What's the fallout from the U.S. exiting the Paris Agreement?

It’s a terrible day for the global response to climate change when the U.S. rejects the keystone international agreement and does so almost gleefully with justifications full of misinformation.

However, in the short-term, U.S. withdrawal may matter little to the functioning of the Paris Agreement. The decentralized nature of the agreement insulates it to some extent from the recalcitrance or absence of any one party. In addition, the immediate reaction from around the world has been a reaffirming of countries’ commitments to the Paris Agreement and to acting on climate change. So the U.S. withdrawal could generate some momentum. Beyond countries’ reactions, a number of cities, U.S. states and corporations are vocally pledging to keep moving ahead on climate change despite Trump’s decision.

Long-term, the Paris Agreement needs the U.S. if it is to be an effective agreement in the sense of achieving its goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees. However, the U.S. withdrawal will take at least three years to take effect and will thus likely be a key element of both the 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 presidential elections in the U.S.

Is this unexpected or was it a given based on his attitude toward climate change?

This is not unexpected.

It was a very visible campaign pledge, and it fits with the Trump administration’s pattern of hostility towards climate action and international cooperation. There was much made of inter-administration debate, but it seems likely that the U.S. withdrawal was a given upon Trump’s election.

What does this mean for Canada? Do we continue on with our Paris-related targets and the government's carbon tax proposal? Or does this mean we re-examine the agreement as do other countries?

The immediate reaction from the Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment has been to express disappointment in the U.S. decision and to reaffirm that Canada will continue to push forward on climate policy. I suspect that the Canadian government will continue with their commitments and the pan-Canadian framework. The government sees a great deal of opportunity in pursuing the low-carbon economy and renewable energy. The U.S. withdrawal is an opportunity for Canada to be a global leader on climate.

However, there will be uncertainty. The U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, and the U.S. could also face some economic ramifications being so isolated on the climate issue. There will be challenging times ahead for the government.

Can the world realistically target carbon emissions without the involvement of the U.S.?

Long-term, the global response to climate change needs the U.S. to participate as it is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

But that is a different question than needing the federal government to be a leader. Already U.S. states and cities are pledging to take up the mantle of leadership in the U.S., and hopefully they will be able to sustain momentum until the Trump administration is voted out or they come to their senses on climate change.

U of T professors on Trump's first 100 days: “the world is a strange place now”

geoff.vendeville — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:41:29 +0000

U of T professors on Trump's first 100 days: “the world is a strange place now”

geoff.vendeville Fri, 04/28/2017 - 13:41

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to the oil pipeline industry, among many executive orders he has signed in the first 100 days (photo by Shawn Thew/Pool/Getty Images)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Author legacy

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

Global Lens

Politics

U of T Scarborough

Faculty of Arts & Science

Subheadline

Historian and political scientist debate impact of Trump's actions on trade, immigration and health care

For months, much of the world has been watching with bated breath as Trump has settled into the presidency.

From efforts to suspend immigration from predominantly Muslim countries to trying to repeal Obamacare and picking fights over NAFTA, softwood lumber and dairy – it has been a busy 100 days. In the midst of it all, the 45th president has also reportedly found the time to install a Coke button in the White House to quench his thirst.

So, how has Trump performed in his first months on the job?

U of T News talked with historian Robert Bothwell from the Faculty of Arts & Science, an expert on post-1945 international and Canadian history, and political scientist Ryan Hurl of U of T Scarborough who specializes in American politics.

Trump's critics have said his presidency would be a disaster. How do you think he's done?

Robert Bothwell: It's a slow moving disaster.

I guess people were a little optimistic in thinking that it would take only a 100 days.

I think his essential qualities have been revealed.

He comes across as capricious, very ill-informed, unprepared for office – he's actually said as much.

Ryan Hurl: Without disagreeing with what Professor Bothwell said, let me look at it from a different perspective.

Let's begin with the absolute and incontrovertible truth: Trump was not qualified to be president and lacks many aspects of the policy expertise that either President Hillary Clinton would have had or certainly President [Barack] Obama or President Bill Clinton. Has this created a disaster? Well, political disasters – even slow-moving ones – depend very much on your politics.

The initial political problem is maintaining that Republican coalition. On that front, it's been a political success. This might not be apparent to everyone.

What do you think he has learned from his first 100 days?

Robert Bothwell: I'm very sceptical that Trump really learns.

His various attempts to cobble together something on health care – renewed this week for short-term political purposes – have failed.

Ryan Hurl: On the steep learning curve, I more or less agree with much of what Professor Bothwell said.

What Trump's finding out is that his election in 2016 is in no way equivalent to the election of Obama in 2008 or, goodness knows, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. There's not much of a mandate. It's a narrow electoral victory. And in those kinds of circumstances, the ability of the president to lead through the power of personal charisma or bullying in some instances is simply very limited.

What Trump is learning is that balancing that party coalition is going to be extremely difficult. Perhaps, he's also learning that he won the election despite his personality as opposed to because of it.

Are you saying he's learning humility?

Ryan Hurl: He's been given the opportunity to learn humility, or at least the opportunity to learn what leadership means in the context of a political system as opposed to leadership in the business world. It sort of reminds me of what Truman said about Eisenhower when he said that Eisenhower is used to working in the army when he's in charge. He will find that being president is very, very different.

Protesters hold up signs criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump at a rally in Minneapolis in February (photo by Fibonacci Blue via Flickr)

He promised to repeal Obamacare and to limit immigration from certain countries. So far, he hasn't been able to do this. Has this hurt his support?

Robert Bothwell: I think it's less policy than it is attitude. The kinds of people who are the Trump base like his personality. They like the forcefulness. They like the uncompromising statements.

By the way, it's not limitation from certain countries. It's Muslims, and that's what he said during the campaign. And Mexicans of course.

His base likes that. It's a simple solution to problems that are not unreal, even if the definition of the problem would differ from person to person.

I don't think elite commentators are at all comfortable with this so they ignore it.

Ryan Hurl: On the broader immigration question, I think you're dealing with an issue where there is a significant degree of ambiguity among the public, not so different from the health-care issue.

It's one thing to say, 'Yes, there are immigration laws, we should follow the law in general.’ When we see what that could mean in terms of how it's disrupting families, opinions can change.

U of T keeping close watch on impact of US travel restrictions

Ultimately the problem that Republicans face and the Democrats as well has to do with the ambiguity of public opinion. People wish to have the advantages of public health care without some of the unavoidable consequences, which are that you're not going to have the same level of choice. You might have to pay additional taxes and so on and so forth.

What do you make of the disputes over NAFTA, softwood lumber and dairy? What do you think will come of them?

Robert Bothwell: We do see how Trump has proceeded with NAFTA, which is to have several policy reversals over the course of a week. That ought to tell you something about Trump and his administrative style. He may inadvertently blow up NAFTA.

If you look at the basic NAFTA strategy in terms of politics, it's poor. If you look at it in terms of the Trump base, it's a very hard thing to put together because a lot of core Republican areas – whether they know it or not – are benefiting from NAFTA.

Just to go back to my basic point: I think he's so capricious and irresponsible that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Trump take some drastic decision that he can't run back on.

Ryan Hurl: We know as Canadians that free trade even within a country can be a difficult thing to achieve, and we also know it's a process of ongoing negotiation, even within a country.

From that perspective the notion of reconsidering aspects of a trade agreement or the notion that trade deals will be difficult and have to be reconsidered, that to me is not that unusual. But again, Trump's negotiating style is somewhat...um...unique let's say.

I hope Trump has some legal advisers that tell him the president can't simply annul a treaty, that the president has to work with Congress on these issues. I hope he would have advisers say there can be a common ground.

There was a lot of talk about the Trump administration's ties to Russia in the first few months. Where do you see this leading?

Robert Bothwell: Who knows? What really is quite striking about this is how little the Russian issue has impacted American politics. In the days of [U.S. Senator Joseph] McCarthy this would have been enough for burnings in the street.

They seem to have gotten rid of the person who probably was most vulnerable to conspiracy charges, and that's [Michael] Flynn.

I really don't see the Russian connection being at all clear in terms of American action for the future.

Ryan Hurl: I think that's exactly right. Let me just add one thing: for years during the Obama administration, there was the ongoing birther controversy, and I tried to just ignore it. I didn't discuss it in my classrooms. It was just so ridiculous. In the back of my mind, I sort of treated the Russian connection the same way – not that it's inconceivable or that there isn't some suspicious behaviour, but the evidence just isn't there.

We will see what evidence could emerge, but I agree with Professor Bothwell. At this point, it looks like this is an issue that will die out.

There's no real sign that the Trump administration is unwilling to challenge Russia when necessary – which is probably the most important thing.

How would you grade Trump on his first 100 days?

Robert Bothwell: F. He's been unsuccessful in forming a coherent administration. He has brought a form of dynastic and cliquish politics into the White House, in a way independent of the party system. I'm worried about that. I'm worried about all the evidence that he makes decisions irrationally.

He will have done nothing about – in fact, he will have exacerbated – the problem of the one per cent and the divisions in society, and he runs the risk of endangering race relations

I think this guy deserves a fail, and we should all be alarmed because there's the possibility he won't serve out his term.

Ryan Hurl: This is sort of the situation where you're dealing with a student who is showing some signs of trouble early on in the term. You would basically say, 'Well, you're going to have to think about what you're doing and change direction on some things. Seek some additional help if necessary, if you're going to complete the course or get the kind of grade you're looking for.'

In terms of his personal leadership and attempt to heal the fractures in the nation, I think he has done very poorly. But on the broader issues, it's simply too early to tell. He's engaging in an experiment that could be described as libertarianism in one country.

Anyone who says I'm absolutely confident this is going to fail or absolutely confident it's going to succeed – we just don't know. This is sometimes difficult for professors to admit, but the world is a strange place right now.

As O’Leary bows out of conservative race, Bernier set to take the lead, says U of T expert

Romi Levine — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:20:42 +0000

As O’Leary bows out of conservative race, Bernier set to take the lead, says U of T expert

Romi Levine Thu, 04/27/2017 - 11:20

Cutline

Kevin O'Leary has dropped out of the Conservative Party leadership race (photo by Disney | ABC Television Group Follow via Flickr)

Romi Levine

Author legacy

Romi Levine

Topic

In a surprise move, Kevin O’Leary has dropped out of the Conservative Party leadership race, throwing his support behind Maxime Bernier.

O’Leary cited the lack of support in Quebec as his deciding factor, saying he would not be able to win the general election without it.

With the leadership vote only a month away, U of T News' Romi Levine asked Nelson Wiseman, professor of political science and director of Canadian studies at U of T, and Christopher Cochrane, an associate professor of political science at U of T Scarborough, how his departure will shake up the race.

Does O'Leary's departure surprise you?

Nelson Wiseman: Yes, I think it surprises everyone. I think he decided in the last few days once the numbers were out. This morning, the numbers came out about how many Conservative party members were eligible to vote – about a quarter million – and he knows how many memberships have been sold by his organizers. So he did the math in his head.

O'Leary is a very polarizing figure and because it's a preferential ballot, he knew he would get a good number of first ballot votes, and he wouldn't get many second ballot votes. Nobody's going to get 50 per cent off the bat.

He thinks, “Am I going to put in another month? I might get badly embarrassed at the end where I don't even run in the top two or three. I've got other things to do.” By being in the race, he's missing out doing his TV thing. He can't do both at once. You could see he was in the race only part time anyway.

Chris Cochrane: Yes, I'm not sure what's changed now that wasn't equally true several weeks ago. It strikes me as odd that someone who can't speak French and wouldn't participate in the French debates would all of a sudden come to the realization that they can't win a national election because they need Quebec to win.

The question I would have is what exactly changed in his camp vis-a-vis the road to victory in a federal election.

Did he stop taking it seriously?

Nelson Wiseman: I thought he took it seriously at the get-go, and as it got going, he thought, “I'm going to win it on my terms, or I'm not going to win it.”

I heard that he didn't think he had enough support in Quebec – that was always a mystery and that was one area where potentially he could've made gains even though he doesn't speak French and doesn't know anything about Quebec issues. Most of the ridings in Quebec are “rotten boroughs” – the term comes from British history – these are constituencies in which there are virtually no members. Say each constituency is worth 100 points, if you could sign up five members and if you got all of their votes, you got 100 points. That's the same as 10,000 people voting for you in Calgary South-West.

Chris Cochrane: It's hard for me to get inside his psychology, but my impression is he may well have come to the realization that this is something he doesn't want to do. The reason is I can't see him ever having believed, or the people around him that are advising him believed he would ever be able to make a breakthrough in Quebec.

To me, it looks like somebody who has come to the realization that maybe in fact he couldn't win the leadership race within the party, which is a very real possibility if a lot of entrenched conservatives weren't willing to embrace him either because they felt he was an outsider, or he didn't have that much support from party stalwarts – that may be a good reason to step out of the leadership race.

O'Leary's leadership style was often compared to that of Donald Trump – what made Trump more successful in the leadership race?

Nelson Wiseman: Rules are very important to outcome. Donald Trump could win because there were primaries, and they were first past the post – you just had to get more votes than anybody else. You could win with 38 per cent of the vote.

That doesn't work in the Conservative leadership – you've got to get 50 per cent. So even had O'Leary gotten the most votes on the first ballot, he wouldn't have won in my opinion.

Chris Cochrane: Whether or not Trump had any sort of unique contribution to the Republican success in the last election is very much an open question. For the most part, people who have always voted Republican voted Republican.

O'Leary is different. He is an outsider like Trump. He was an affluent business person. He's been in show business. Those were things that resonated. But he doesn't have Trump's speaking style so he doesn't speak in a way that might connect with folks. Also, the big difference with O'Leary is with immigration. O'Leary's a strong supporter of immigration – he didn't draw the same kind of crowd Trump mobilized in the Republican party.

The differences between O'Leary and Trump are quite significant, the differences between Canada and the United States are quite significant – so even a Trump-like candidate wouldn't have won here.

Do you think Bernier now has the best chance at Conservative leadership?

Nelson Wiseman: I thought that Bernier was the odds-on favourite from even before the time that [Stephen] Harper resigned. That is because he seemed to be openly campaigning for the leadership from the moment he entered parliament.

If you asked me yesterday who was going to win, I'd say Bernier. However, I am somewhat surprised by how strong Andrew Scheer and especially Erin O'Toole have become. What I'm seeing in this race is that I'm not sure there is an establishment candidate. It really is fragmented, and it's simply a matter of who goes out and sells the most memberships and gets those people to actually vote.

I think Bernier has the sufficiently big lead that he could get over the top.

Chris Cochrane: It's hard to say. Based on what I've seen from Maxime Bernier, I don't think he's the person who's going to beat Justin Trudeau.

The hope is, if he can make a breakthrough in Quebec and pick up some seats for the fiscal conservatives in Ontario and keep the West, he'll be well positioned to at least be a competitive candidate. I don't think he'll be a disaster for the party. I think one of the risks for the Liberals in the next election is that they suffer from an enthusiasm deficit especially if some of the progressives and young supporters who park their vote or are new to voting defect from the Liberals because they don't feel they're delivering as purely with some of their left-wing promises.

It's possible the Conservatives could pull off an upset, but I don't think Bernier is the kind of person who is going to be able to draw a lot from the left of the party.

Trump

Syrian doctor affected by Trump travel ban tells his story

Read more about Dr. Almilaji

Read the article

Bannon out: U of T political scientist reflects on chief strategist's exit

A constitutional crisis if Trump chooses to pardon himself: U of T law professor

U of T monitoring impact of revised U.S. travel ban

Students

Faculty & Staff

International Students

See additional info

Trudeau at U of T: Canada and U.S. are “two countries that have grown up together”

Read Canada's Trump Strategy: Go Around Him

#UofTGrad17: Three things you should know about honorary grad Margaret MacMillan

Prime Minister Trudeau to talk Canada-U.S. relations at U of T

The world needs U.S. to participate in climate change actions: U of T political scientist

U of T professors on Trump's first 100 days: “the world is a strange place now”

U of T keeping close watch on impact of US travel restrictions

As O’Leary bows out of conservative race, Bernier set to take the lead, says U of T expert