Canadians Idolizing Donald Trump Defies Logic

 

 

  By J André Faust (Nov 19, 2024)

 

Why Do Some Canadians Support Donald Trump?

Why do some Canadians support Donald Trump when the potential imposition of 10% to 20% across-the-board tariffs by the United States under his leadership could have devastating repercussions for the Canadian economy? Approximately two-thirds of Canada's exports are destined for the U.S., making our economy deeply intertwined with theirs.

These tariffs would likely drive up the cost of Canadian goods in the U.S. market, reducing demand and delivering a severe blow to Canadian industries reliant on exports. Analysts have already raised alarms that such a move could trigger a recession in Canada, disrupting trade flows and destabilizing our economic foundation.

The impact wouldn’t stop there—it would hit the Canadian oil industry particularly hard. Provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Labrador, which depend heavily on petroleum exports, could experience crippling economic downturns. Canadian oil would become less competitive in the United States, our largest buyer, which currently accounts for nearly all of our crude oil exports. With tariffs in place, American buyers could easily pivot to domestic or other international suppliers, leaving Canada to bear the brunt of the loss.

I fail to understand the logic behind admiring a would-be president who shows such blatant disregard for Canada. Trump does not give a rat’s ass about our economy or the devastating domino effect these policies could have on our entire country.

Conclusion

The potential for tariffs under a Trump-led U.S. administration highlights the vulnerability of Canada's trade-dependent economy. Such policies could wreak havoc on industries like petroleum, driving regional and national economic instability. While free trade agreements such as the USMCA offer a framework for collaboration, the review scheduled for 2026 adds uncertainty to an already precarious relationship.

It is imperative for Canadians to critically assess the economic and political implications of U.S. leadership choices. Supporting a leader who threatens the core pillars of Canada’s economy seems counter-intuitive, particularly when the consequences could reverberate across the nation. The need for robust, strategic responses to safeguard Canadian interests has never been clearer.

---

The Price of Protectionism: How Trump’s Policies Could Hurt Canada’s Economy Yet Some Canadians sees Trump as a God Sent

 By J André Faust (Nov 10, 2024)

It is puzzling why Trump seems to garner so much support from some Canadians. This sentiment echoes from the streets, coffee shops, and across social media. At first glance, it seems illogical: first, as Canadians, we don’t have a vote in the United States; and second, his protectionist policies could ripple unfavourably throughout the Canadian economy from coast to coast.

To understand Trump’s protectionist stance, let’s briefly examine the impacts of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and some key trade restrictions his administration placed on Canada:

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

In March 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs of 25% on Canadian steel and 10% on Canadian aluminum, citing national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. In response, Canada implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, including steel, aluminum, and various consumer items. Although these tariffs were eventually lifted in May 2019 after negotiations, they marked a shift in U.S.-Canada trade relations.

Softwood Lumber Tariffs

Trump's administration claimed Canadian provinces were unfairly subsidizing the lumber industry, resulting in duties ranging from 10% to 24% on Canadian softwood lumber imports. This impacted construction costs and strained trade relations.

Dairy Trade Restrictions

During the USMCA renegotiation, Trump criticized Canada’s dairy supply management system, which limited U.S. imports to protect Canadian farmers. The USMCA required Canada to ease restrictions on U.S. dairy, poultry, and egg products.

Threatened Tariffs on Auto Imports

Trump repeatedly threatened tariffs on Canadian auto imports as part of a broader negotiation strategy, though these were never enacted. This tactic pushed Canada to make concessions during USMCA talks.

These measures, most of which were lifted or adjusted by the end of Trump’s presidency as USMCA took effect in July 2020, underscored his "America First" approach. This stance brought a new tension to U.S.-Canada trade relations, favouring U.S. interests at Canada’s expense.

When it comes to trade, Canada’s bargaining power with the U.S. is limited. As such, USMCA primarily benefits the United States. Realistically, given the power disparity, it hardly matters if Trudeau or Poilievre is in office—the dynamic remains a zero-sum game where the United States typically benefits to Canada’s disadvantage.

So, why do some Canadians appear to support a foreign leader whose policies could jeopardize Canada’s economic relationship with the United States? Given that Canada’s economy is highly integrated with the U.S.—particularly through trade that supports agriculture and energy exports—this seems counterintuitive. Nonetheless, ideological and cultural alignments sometimes supersede economic pragmatism.

Here are a few factors that might explain why Trump’s protectionism hasn’t dissuaded some Canadians from supporting him:

Ideology Over Economics

For some supporters, ideology outweighs economic concerns. Canadians who align with Trump’s values—such as strong borders, nationalism, or conservative social policies—may view his economic policies as secondary. They might even believe Canada could adapt or benefit from a renegotiated relationship, hoping it fosters self-sufficiency.

Misperceptions of Economic Impact

Not all Canadians fully understand the risks protectionism poses to our economy. Tariffs and trade barriers may seem abstract, especially if they don’t immediately affect daily life. Media portrayals often simplify or sensationalize economic issues, making the true consequences of protectionist policies harder to grasp.

Discontent with Canadian Policy and Institutions

Some Canadians dissatisfied with the current state of Canadian politics or institutions may see Trump as a desirable alternative, even if his policies could harm Canada’s economy. This perspective often reflects a desire for radical change, regardless of the economic logic for Canada.

Belief in U.S.-Canada Resilience

Some Canadians assume that the close Canada-U.S. relationship would shield us from the full effects of American protectionism. They might believe that U.S. businesses, particularly those reliant on Canadian resources, would press against harsh tariffs, thereby maintaining some stability despite Trump’s policies.

Populism and National Pride

Canadian populist sentiments sometimes mirror those in the U.S., advocating for national pride and reduced global dependence. Trump’s rhetoric may inspire Canadians who believe in reducing reliance on U.S. or international trade, especially those favouring local industry, even at a cost.

Canada’s negotiating power with the U.S. is indeed limited, and a protectionist American leader could seriously impact critical Canadian sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and energy. However, when ideology and populism come into play, economic concerns may take a back seat. Some Canadians may assume that, despite protectionist measures, Canada’s adaptability and resource-based economy could provide stability through turbulent times.

Summary

Donald Trump's administration implemented protectionist policies that negatively impacted Canada’s economy, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were later lifted in 2019, and restrictions on dairy trade, as well as threats of auto tariffs. Despite these policies, which disrupted sectors of the Canadian economy, some Canadians continue to support Trump. For these individuals, ideological alignment with Trump on issues like nationalism and conservative social values often outweighs concerns about economic impacts. Additionally, some Canadians hold misconceptions about the effect of protectionist policies, believe in the resilience of the U.S.-Canada relationship to withstand economic tension, or seek alternatives to Canadian policy and institutions. Populist views favouring economic independence and national pride further contribute to Trump’s appeal, despite risks to Canada’s economic stability. These findings underscore the way cultural values often eclipse economic pragmatism in shaping political preferences.

Conclusion

In examining the support some Canadians have for Donald Trump despite his protectionist policies, it becomes clear that ideology can overshadow practical economic concerns. Although Trump’s policies—such as tariffs, restrictions, and trade renegotiations—have adversely affected Canada, including initial tariffs on steel and aluminum later lifted in 2019, his supporters persist due to deeper ideological and cultural affinities. This alignment demonstrates a broader trend: cultural identity and ideology frequently override economic interests, shaping public opinion in unexpected ways. While Canada’s reliance on the United States creates a vulnerable trade position, many supporters seem to believe Canada’s adaptability and close economic ties with the U.S. will sustain stability despite protectionist policies.

---

The Great Divide: An Ideological Perspective for Modern Voters (Part Two)

By J André Faust (Nov 10, 2024)

Part Two of Two

As it stands, the first-past-the-post voting system, at least for now, allows for only two dominant parties; that is not to say this couldn’t change. However, it is highly unlikely that such a change would occur.

Understanding the game of politics can be a daunting task, as the game is complex within Canada and becomes even more complicated when international issues are introduced, such as trade agreements, treaties, maintaining alliances, and so forth. One explanation behind the complexity is that each player’s strategy is to maximize their payoffs. To gain insight into how the game is played from a Canadian perspective, it helps to have a basic understanding of the dominant parties' political philosophies and ideologies. All ideologies, after all, have their roots in philosophy.

Currently, at the federal level, the Canadian political landscape has two dominant political ideologies: conservatism, which aligns with the Conservative Party, and liberalism, which aligns with the Liberal Party.

The current Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) philosophy and ideology reflect a blend of traditional conservative principles, populist influences, and an emphasis on individual freedoms. The party is shaped by its historical roots in both the Progressive Conservative (PC) and Reform/Canadian Alliance legacies, which has led to a unique combination of right-leaning values focused on economic, social, and political issues. Here’s an overview of the CPC’s current philosophy and ideologies:

1. Fiscal Conservatism and Economic Policies

• Pro-Business, Low-Tax Approach: The CPC promotes a business-friendly environment through policies aimed at reducing taxes, deregulating industries, and encouraging investment. It advocates for corporate tax cuts, reduced income taxes, and tax credits to stimulate economic growth and maintain a competitive economy.
• Balanced Budgets and Limited Government Spending: The party emphasizes fiscal responsibility, advocating for balanced budgets and a reduction in national debt. It generally opposes extensive government spending and prefers a more restrained role for the federal government in economic matters.
• Free-Market Policies: The CPC supports free-market capitalism, favouring private enterprise over government intervention, especially in sectors like healthcare and energy.

2. Individual Freedoms and Personal Responsibility

• Limited Government Intervention: The CPC emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility, favouring minimal government involvement in individuals' lives. It encourages individual choice in areas such as healthcare, education, and personal finance.
• Support for Charter Rights: While the party advocates for limited government, it generally supports rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedoms of speech and religion. However, this is sometimes balanced with conservative social policies, particularly where social conservatism plays a role.

3. Social Policies and Cultural Conservatism

• Social Conservatism: While ideologically varied, social conservatives within the CPC influence its stance on issues like abortion, family values, and same-sex marriage. The party as a whole, however, tends to avoid making these issues central to its platform, balancing between traditional conservative values and mainstream voters.
• Traditional Family Values and Social Institutions: The CPC traditionally supports policies that reinforce family structures and social institutions. It favours policies that support families, such as tax breaks for families and parental leave options.

4. Populism and Regional Representation

• Populist and Grassroots Appeal: The CPC often adopts populist rhetoric to address the concerns of ordinary Canadians, particularly on issues like affordability, inflation, and perceived government overreach. It presents itself as a voice for average Canadians against political elites and bureaucracy.
• Western and Rural Advocacy: The CPC has strong roots in western Canada and often addresses the specific concerns of western provinces, such as energy policy and provincial rights. The party advocates for fair treatment of all provinces and is cautious about policies that could disproportionately benefit specific regions, like Quebec.

5. Energy and Environmental Policy

• Support for the Energy Sector: The CPC is a strong advocate for the energy industry, particularly oil and gas. It supports pipeline development and resource extraction as part of a balanced approach to energy policy, arguing that Canada can lead in responsible resource development.
• Balanced Approach to Climate Change: While the CPC acknowledges climate change, its policies emphasize a balanced approach that supports economic growth and the energy sector. It generally favors market-based solutions over government-imposed restrictions, focusing on innovation and carbon capture technology rather than stringent regulations.

6. National Security and Foreign Policy

• Strong Defense and Border Security: The CPC advocates for increased defense spending, border security, and support for law enforcement. It supports a robust military and aims to strengthen Canada’s national security.
• Skeptical of Foreign Interventions: In foreign policy, the CPC tends to emphasize Canadian sovereignty and is often skeptical of international agreements or treaties that could undermine national interests. However, it supports strong alliances with traditional allies, particularly the United States.

7. Provincial Rights and Decentralization

• Advocacy for Provincial Autonomy: The CPC often emphasizes decentralization, supporting greater autonomy for provincial governments. It opposes federal policies perceived as infringing on provincial jurisdiction, such as certain healthcare mandates or environmental regulations.
• Opposition to Centralization: Reflecting its western Canadian roots, the CPC typically argues against centralization of power in Ottawa, advocating for policies that respect provincial rights and reduce federal influence in areas traditionally managed by provinces.

To give context to the CPC: In 2003, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance (the successor to the Reform Party) merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. This merger aimed to unite the right-wing vote and challenge the Liberal Party's dominance. The modern Conservative Party reflects both the fiscally conservative and populist influence of the Reform/Canadian Alliance while maintaining some centrist, traditional conservative elements of the Progressive Conservatives.

While there are some overlaps in political philosophy, there is a significant difference between the two dominant parties.

As mentioned earlier, the Liberal Party follows liberalism but integrates a range of ideologies emphasizing social equality, economic growth, and individual freedoms. Here’s an outline of the key ideological components that shape the Liberal Party’s approach:

Liberalism

• Individual Rights and Social Equality: The Liberal Party advocates for policies promoting inclusivity, social justice, and civil liberties, supporting programs like universal healthcare, education, and environmental regulation.

Progressivism

• Progressive Values: The party often aligns with progressive values, particularly on social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, and multiculturalism.
• Social Inequities: It seeks to address social inequities and improve representation and opportunities for marginalized groups.

Social Democracy

• Mixed Economy: The Liberal Party leans toward social democratic principles by supporting a mixed economy where the government plays a strong role in regulating business and redistributing wealth.
• Welfare Programs: Policies include welfare programs, social safety nets, and progressive taxation to reduce income inequality and support low- and middle-income Canadians.

Environmentalism

• Environmental Protection: The Liberal Party promotes policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, investing in renewable energy, and addressing climate change.

Economic Liberalism

• Trade Liberalization: While socially progressive, the party supports economic liberalism, advocating for trade liberalization, foreign investment, and private enterprise.

Multiculturalism

• Diversity: The Liberal Party has historically championed Canadian multiculturalism, supporting diversity and immigration as core values.

Globalism

• International Alliances: The Liberal Party often adopts a globalist approach, supporting international alliances, trade agreements, and a strong role in international organizations like the United Nations.

The Liberal Party's blend of liberalism, social democracy, and progressivism reflects a commitment to balancing economic growth with social equity, environmental protection, and a global perspective on key issues. This broad ideological spectrum aims to appeal to a wide range of Canadians, particularly those who value both individual freedom and social welfare.

It can’t be stressed enough how important it is to understand the principles, ideologies, and philosophies of the respective parties. Joe Clark's departure from the Conservative Party of Canada was based on ideological differences between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. The following is an example of how understanding political ideologies can affect decision-making.

Joe Clark, former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party due to concerns about the party’s future direction. The Conservative Party’s political ideology now combines more right-leaning elements from the Reform/Canadian Alliance with a strong focus on the interests of Western Canadians. Rather than compromise his political beliefs and values, Joe Clark left the party in 1998, unwilling to see the party he had led transform into a more right-wing, populist movement that, in his view, would betray the legacy of the Progressive Conservatives.

Summary

In Canada’s current federal political environment, the Conservative and Liberal parties dominate, each reflecting a distinct political ideology rooted in conservatism and liberalism, respectively. This piece outlines the Conservative Party of Canada’s core principles, which integrate traditional conservative values with populist elements. These principles include a pro-business, low-tax approach, support for individual freedoms, and advocacy for provincial autonomy, especially in Western Canada. The Conservative Party, as it stands, is shaped by the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Reform/Canadian Alliance legacies, resulting in a unique combination of fiscally conservative and populist perspectives.

In contrast, the Liberal Party emphasizes social equity, inclusivity, and environmental stewardship, integrating liberalism with elements of social democracy and progressivism. Its policies focus on universal healthcare, multiculturalism, and global cooperation, seeking a balance between economic growth and social welfare. Together, these two parties present differing visions for Canada, each with its own ideological framework.

The piece also touches on the historical opposition by Joe Clark, former Progressive Conservative leader, to the merger with the Reform Party. Clark’s departure reflected a broader ideological rift, highlighting concerns that the merger would dilute traditional conservative values and shift the party toward a more populist stance. This background provides context for the evolution of Canada’s conservative landscape and its implications for today’s political dynamics.

Conclusion

In understanding Canada’s political landscape, it is essential to recognize the distinct ideological bases of its two dominant parties. The Conservative Party’s philosophy reflects a blend of conservatism and populism, shaped by a commitment to economic freedom, personal responsibility, and a decentralized federal structure. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, aligns with liberalism’s core tenets, promoting social justice, inclusivity, and environmental protection within a mixed economy.

Both parties have roots in broader philosophical traditions, and understanding their principles offers insights into Canada’s political challenges and policy debates. While Canada’s first-past-the-post system may limit the diversity of voices in mainstream politics, examining these dominant ideologies provides a clearer perspective on the political choices Canadians face. As politics continues to evolve, these ideological foundations will play a crucial role in shaping the country’s future, with each party’s approach representing a distinct path forward for Canada.

---

Political Ideologies in a Nutshell: Insights for Contemporary Voters (Part One)

By J André Faust (Nov 09, 2024)

Part One of Two

As we enter the eve of the Canadian federal election, gauging sentiment from social media posts suggests that Canadians are basing their judgments more on leaders' personalities than on political ideologies. Another important part of the voting equation is that many do not fully understand the complexities underlying our social and political issues. There are no simple solutions, as all of these issues are interconnected. A single solution can have a domino effect that permeates the entire social and political spectrum, with the potential to yield results far different from the intended outcome.

As individuals, we may hold beliefs aligned with multiple political ideologies and philosophies, but collectively, we often adhere to either Right- or Left-wing ideologies, which has unfortunately polarized many Canadians. Regrettably, political ideologies are not part of the regular school curriculum and are only available to those students who choose to study political science. Since the discipline of political science is so vast, very little time may actually be spent on political ideology and philosophy—resulting in voters focusing more on the personalities of politicians.

There are many political ideologies and philosophies, but fourteen common ones are generally recognized:

• Liberalism
• Conservatism
• Socialism
• Communism
• Fascism
• Anarchism
• Libertarianism
• Nationalism
• Environmentalism
• Progressivism
• Populism
• Democratic Socialism
• Theocracy
• Monarchism

To summarize each of these ideologies, starting with liberalism:

1. Liberalism
   • Emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and equality.
   • Advocates for limited government intervention in personal freedoms but often supports regulation to ensure social justice and equal opportunity.
2. Conservatism
   • Values tradition, stability, and continuity.
   • Supports limited government intervention in the economy but may favor laws that uphold traditional social values.
3. Socialism
   • Advocates for economic equality and public ownership of key resources and industries.
   • Seeks to reduce income inequality through government programs and welfare systems.
4. Communism
   • Envisions a classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned.
   • Emphasizes the abolition of private property and a collective ownership structure.
5. Fascism
   • Centralized authoritarian control, often combined with strong nationalism.
   • Opposes democracy, liberalism, and socialism; emphasizes loyalty to the state and often includes elements of social Darwinism.
6. Anarchism
   • Belief in stateless societies without hierarchical authority.
   • Emphasizes voluntary cooperation and self-managed communities.
7. Libertarianism
   • Stresses individual liberty, minimal government, and a free-market economy.
   • Advocates for a limited state, mainly to protect individual rights and property.
8. Nationalism
   • Emphasizes the interests of a particular nation or ethnic group, often prioritizing national identity and independence.
   • Can intersect with other ideologies but focuses on national sovereignty.
9. Environmentalism
   • Prioritizes ecological sustainability and conservation.
   • Often intersects with other ideologies, advocating for policy change to address climate and environmental issues.
10. Progressivism
    • Focuses on social reform, equality, and the protection of marginalized groups.
    • Often advocates for changes in government policy to address social issues and promote fairness.
11. Populism
    • Emphasizes the power of ordinary people over political elites or established institutions.
    • Can be left- or right-wing, depending on the specific focus and region.
12. Democratic Socialism
    • Combines democratic governance with socialist economic policies.
    • Advocates for welfare systems and regulation to ensure fair wealth distribution but retains democratic elections and individual freedoms.
13. Theocracy
    • A system of government where religious leaders or principles guide political decisions.
    • Common in countries where religion heavily influences laws and governance.
14. Monarchism
    • Advocates for the rule of a monarch (king, queen, or emperor), with varying degrees of power.
    • Monarchs may be absolute or constitutional, depending on the country and system.

Keep in mind that each ideology provides different perspectives on power, governance, and society, and often overlaps in modern politics as parties and movements adapt to changing social and economic conditions.

When each of these ideologies is closely examined, we find that each one is considerably more complex than the brief descriptions listed here.

Summary

As Canada approaches another federal election, it becomes evident that voter sentiment is often shaped by the personalities of party leaders rather than their political ideologies. This trend reveals a gap in public understanding of complex social and political issues. The piece examines fourteen prominent political ideologies—Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Environmentalism, Progressivism, Populism, Democratic Socialism, Theocracy, and Monarchism—each providing a unique perspective on governance, power, and societal structure.

Despite the diverse array of ideologies, Canadians largely align with either Right- or Left-wing perspectives, which has contributed to increased polarization. The article argues that this polarization may stem from a lack of ideological education in schools, as political ideologies are typically only addressed in elective political science courses. By outlining the core beliefs of each ideology, the discussion aims to enhance readers' understanding of these complex ideas and the intricate ways in which they intersect within society.

Conclusion

Political ideologies provide frameworks for understanding and addressing societal challenges, yet their complexity often leads to misunderstandings, oversimplifications, or neglect in public discourse. As Canadians prepare to vote, there is a need for greater ideological literacy to ensure that decisions are grounded in a true understanding of policy implications, rather than solely on the appeal of political personalities. Education in political ideologies could help bridge this gap, equipping future generations with the knowledge to engage meaningfully in civic life and to appreciate the multifaceted nature of governance. This piece serves as a starting point for those interested in delving deeper into the principles that shape political landscapes and influence collective decision-making.

---

Pre -Election: President Elect Donald Trump Promises To End Ukraine War

In examining President-elect Donald Trump's potential approach to the Ukraine war, there's a suggestion that he may pursue a resolution that favours Russian interests. From a game theory perspective, the United States currently imposes numerous sanctions on Russia. These restrictions are extensive: they limit Russia's access to international financial systems, prohibit transactions involving Russian sovereign debt, restrict imports of Russian oil, gas, and coal, and impose barriers on energy-related services connected to Russian production and exploration. These sanctions collectively aim to constrain Russia's economic capacity to continue its war efforts.

If the incoming Trump administration seeks to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, a logical step might involve easing or even entirely removing these sanctions. By lifting restrictions, Trump could create an environment where Russia’s economy has the opportunity to recover and expand. This expansion would align with Russia’s interests and, in theory, could provide sufficient incentive for Russia to end hostilities with Ukraine.

However, taking this approach poses substantial risks. By lifting sanctions, the United States would likely strain its relationships with key allies who support these measures as part of a united front against Russian aggression. Such a move could be perceived by allies as an alignment with Russian interests, potentially triggering a backlash, including trade restrictions or other diplomatic consequences directed at the United States. This situation places the U.S. in a dominated strategy position: any choice that eases sanctions risks damaging its alliances and diplomatic standing, while maintaining sanctions could limit pathways to a peace agreement.

In this scenario, we face a "no-win" situation for the United States, where efforts to negotiate a favorable deal for Russia may lead to unintended consequences that weaken U.S. influence globally. Thus, President-elect Trump's options seem constrained, and any attempt to forge a peace agreement that provides Russia with a positive payoff could come at a steep diplomatic cost.

---

Beyond Free-Will: A Game Theory Perspective on Cialdini’s 7 Persuasion Principles

 

Every day, we are bombarded with information intended to shape our thinking and influence our choices, ranging from marketing strategies to political propaganda. Unfortunately, these methods often rely on subtle deception, creating a world where the line between genuine choice and manipulation is blurred. This situation raises a fundamental question: do we truly have free will?

This essay analyzes the principles of persuasion as defined by Robert Cialdini through the lens of game theory, drawing on insights from thinkers like Thomas Schelling and John von Neumann to explore how these principles play out in social interactions.

In his landmark 1984 book, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion*, Cialdini identified six principles of persuasion: Authority, Social Proof, Scarcity, Liking, Reciprocity, and Consistency. He later expanded this list to include a seventh principle, Unity, in a 2016 update. Each of these principles can be examined in the framework of game theory to understand how individuals and groups respond strategically to influence.

Authority

Cialdini’s first principle, Authority, demonstrates how people are inclined to follow directions from figures perceived as knowledgeable or legitimate, even if these directions conflict with personal ethics. The famous Milgram experiment, conducted by Yale University’s social psychologist Stanley Milgram, demonstrated this tendency. Participants were instructed to perform actions that contradicted their moral beliefs, yet most complied simply because the instructions came from an authority figure.

In game theory, people align with authority figures to reduce personal risk and potentially gain rewards or avoid punishments. Authoritative figures often leverage this dynamic, securing compliance by establishing themselves as symbols of power or expertise. Dictators and influential leaders often use this strategy to great effect.

Social Proof

Social Proof, or what Cialdini terms the “wisdom of the crowd,” operates on the principle that individuals look to the behavior of others when making decisions, especially in uncertain situations. From online ratings to popular trends, people tend to mimic what they see others doing, assuming that if many approve of something, it must be valuable.

Game theory explains Social Proof as a coordination game, where individuals use others' actions as cues in uncertain situations. The behaviors of the group help individuals decide whether to adopt certain beliefs, buy a product, or support a cause, creating a feedback loop that reinforces popularity.

Scarcity

Scarcity is another powerful motivator. According to Cialdini, when people believe that a product or opportunity is limited, its value seems to increase. Advertisers often exploit this by creating a sense of urgency, claiming limited availability or time-bound offers. The fear of missing out triggers a primal instinct to act quickly.

In game theory, scarcity translates into a game of competition, where players try to secure scarce resources by being the first to act. This creates an artificial race for limited goods, often driving demand even when supply could meet it. Individuals employ strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring these "scarce" resources, especially when availability is manipulated to appear lower than it truly is.

Liking

People are more easily influenced by those they find likable, a principle Cialdini refers to as Liking. Similarity, familiarity, and cooperation foster likability and make individuals more susceptible to persuasion. This principle explains why “word-of-mouth” recommendations from friends are so effective.

In game theory, Liking functions as a game of trust. Positive relationships and shared trust lead individuals to cooperate more readily, with each player expecting mutually beneficial outcomes. This trust can significantly impact decisions, as individuals are more likely to take recommendations from people they like.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is the idea that people feel obligated to return favors. Cialdini observes that people are more likely to respond positively to those who have already done something for them. For example, a restaurant that offers a free mint may receive higher tips as patrons feel compelled to reciprocate this small gesture.

Game theory frames Reciprocity as a “tit-for-tat” strategy in repeated games, where cooperation is encouraged by the expectation of future interactions. Failing to reciprocate could damage one’s reputation and hinder future cooperation. Thus, players are motivated to maintain a cycle of mutual benefit, reinforcing positive interactions.

Consistency

Consistency taps into our desire to appear reliable and true to our commitments. If we take a small step in one direction, like placing a small campaign sign on our lawn, we are more likely to agree to larger requests in the future. Cialdini explains that once people publicly commit to an idea, they are more likely to continue supporting it.

From a game theory perspective, Consistency is a cost-benefit analysis of behavior. By maintaining consistency with prior commitments, individuals avoid the social or reputational costs associated with changing positions. The drive for consistency encourages people to act in ways that reinforce their past behavior, reducing cognitive dissonance and projecting stability.

Unity

Cialdini’s final principle, Unity, refers to the influence of shared identity. When people feel they belong to a common group, they are more susceptible to persuasion from within that group. Family, nationality, and other forms of identity foster a sense of "one of us" that strengthens bonds and amplifies influence.

In game theory, Unity aligns with the dynamics of repeated games within a group setting, where individuals prioritize the collective good over personal gain. By promoting a shared identity, players work toward community goals and are motivated to enhance collective outcomes over individual ones.

Summary

This essay explores Cialdini’s principles of persuasion—Authority, Social Proof, Scarcity, Liking, Reciprocity, Consistency, and Unity—through the lens of game theory. Each principle reveals a strategic interaction in which individuals balance personal motives with social cues and potential rewards. Whether people comply with authority, follow the crowd, or reciprocate a favor, these behaviors can be understood as calculated moves within a complex social game.

Conclusion

Cialdini’s principles reveal that persuasion often operates as a calculated game, where individuals’ choices are subtly guided by powerful social cues. Game theory shows that these responses—whether to authority, social proof, or scarcity—follow predictable patterns shaped by external influences rather than entirely by conscious choice. This perspective brings the notion of free will into question: to what extent are we truly autonomous when so many of our decisions are influenced by forces we scarcely recognize?

By understanding these principles, we gain insight into how our thoughts and actions may be directed by strategic influences. Awareness of these dynamics can empower us to reclaim a measure of agency in our decision-making. While complete freedom from influence may be impossible in a highly interconnected world, recognizing the forces at play allows us to approach choices with greater intentionality, exercising what free will we do have with clearer understanding.

---

Breaking The Cycle: Solutions For Poverty Wages In A Rising Economy If Any

 

The majority will agree: every worker deserves, at minimum, a living wage—with enough left over for some disposable income at the end of the day.

The solution seems simple: raise the minimum wage to a standard that meets basic living needs. But here lies the paradox, an inflationary pressure. As the wage floor rises, those whose poverty wages were temporarily lifted soon find themselves back where they started, as costs inevitably climb. Meanwhile, all other wage earners gradually lose buying power. So, how do we break this inflationary cycle?

---

NDP Leader Comments as The Bloc Québécois Threatens to Topple Liberal Government

Video aired on CPAC on October 30, 2024

 Andre Faust (Oct 30, 2024)

If an election were called today, it seems nearly inevitable that the Liberal Party would face a resounding defeat. Current polls and the public discourse on social media echo a discontent that cannot be ignored. The Bloc Québécois has now issued an ultimatum to the Trudeau government: either support an increase in old-age pensions, or we’ll join forces with other parties to push for a vote of non-confidence.

Poised at the ready, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives recognize the opportunity before them. Knowing this could be their best shot at taking power, they would undoubtedly throw their support behind the Bloc to bring down the Liberal government. The question mark, however, lies with the NDP. While a premature election may not be in their favor—they need time to solidify their campaign strategy—they could still act as a spoiler, effectively paving the way for a Conservative victory. Regardless, the Trudeau government has seen its popularity dwindle over the past year. For the Liberals to reclaim their footing, it may be time for Trudeau to step aside for the party’s greater good.

Meanwhile, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has declared his party’s opposition to the Bloc’s motion, refusing to play into Poilievre’s hands. Singh lists the challenges Canadians face—rising housing costs, soaring grocery bills, an overwhelmed healthcare system. Yet, therein lies a glaring gap: Singh, like his political counterparts, stops short of presenting concrete solutions.

So, whether an election comes early or waits until October 2025, Canadians deserve answers. Voters must demand clarity from all candidates: what are your party’s tangible solutions to the mounting problems this nation faces? In the end, the promise of change means little without a clear path forward.

---

Canada's Failing Health System For The Average Canadian

By J. André Faust 

Since 1970 our healthcare system has been degrading to such an extent that it no longer meets the needs of the average Canadian as Compared to the 70s', Canadians are forced to spend a ludicrous amount of time in the waiting in emergency waiting rooms for some; the wait time proves to be fatal.

Many New Brunswickers are without a family doctor and are on a waiting list to have a family doctor or nurse practitioner assigned to them, which could be years before their health needs are looked after. Statistically, seniors who are a product of the aging process can develop health issues, and in some cases, treatment early could prevent the condition from becoming potentially lethal later.

 What perplexes me is that the Canadian population, according to World Bank data available up to 2019, the population of Canada was approximately 21.37 million in 1970 as compared to today's population, which is 38.74 million and increasing. Obviously, looking at the population difference between 1970 and 2023, there were fewer tax dollars available, and GST/HST didn't exist. Yet most Canadians had family doctors, and wait times in the emergency room were nominal.

 Those born in the eighties and after would have no recollection of how good the Canadian health system was compared to today's health care system.

So, what happened, in the 70s, people were paying fewer taxes, yet getting better services. Today we pay much higher taxes yet receive less.

Something doesn't add up. In trying to unpack why Canadian healthcare has digressed to third-world levels in 4 + decades. Currently, the future doesn't look promising if this trend continues. 

There are several explanations for why our health system is in such a disarray,

Population Aging: Since the 1970s, the proportion of older adults in Canada has increased significantly, placing additional pressure on the healthcare system. Older adults typically have more complex health needs, and the increase in this demographic can strain healthcare resources.

The problem with the population ageing argument is that most of the war babies have died off, and because the cost of raising families limits the number of children each family has, which has become a problem within itself. With fewer Canadians being born means a loss of future workers. The population has increased because we bring in newcomers to fill that gap, which is a logical move to resolve worker shortages.

Increase in Chronic Diseases: Linked to the aging population, there has been an increase in chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Managing these conditions requires long-term healthcare services and resources, but with more and more seniors dying, there should be a corresponding decrease in the demand for age-related illnesses.

Rising Healthcare Costs: Medical technologies and pharmaceuticals have advanced rapidly since the 1970s. While these developments can improve care, they also tend to increase costs. Healthcare spending has continued to outpace economic growth and inflation in many developed countries, including Canada. How much are these costs lining the shareholders' pockets?

Workforce Shortages: There have been reported shortages of healthcare professionals in Canada, especially in rural and northern areas. This can lead to longer wait times for treatment and care, but the problem is much more profound; not only the rural areas are also experiencing a shortage, but so are the urban centers.

Equity Issues: There can be significant variation in access to healthcare services depending on where in Canada someone lives, their income level, their indigenous status, etc. These equity issues can create contribute to degradation in the overall system.

Wait Times: Despite Canada's universal healthcare system, wait times for certain procedures and specialist appointments can be long. This has been a persistent issue in the Canadian healthcare system from the 80s on.

Fragmented Care Delivery: There can be issues with the coordination of care, particularly for those with complex health needs. Patients may need to navigate various specialists and services, which can be challenging and inefficient if you don't have a family Dr.

Underinvestment in Prevention and Public Health: There is often a focus on acute, hospital-based care in Canada, with less investment in preventative measures and public health. This can lead to worse overall health outcomes and increased pressure on the healthcare system. While it may have some influence, there are many factors beyond what I have just listed.

Healthcare is a problem across Canada. One could summarize it into one main issue; that problem is all about money, and the political will is not there to ameliorate it.

We elect a government through a democratic process, first-past-the-post may not be the best system, but it remains within the concept of democracy.

Regardless of party colour, the government institution is a plutocracy.

The best explanation for a plutocracy that I have found is as follows:

Plutocracy is a term used to describe a form of government in which the wealthy have control or significant influence. The word comes from the Greek "ploutos," meaning wealth, and "kratos," meaning power or rule.

In a plutocracy, decision-making and policy-setting powers are largely or effectively controlled by the people with the most wealth, either directly or indirectly. This type of societal structure can exist within different forms of government, such as democracies or republics if the political power is heavily influenced by wealth and economic class.

That being said, history has repeatedly demonstrated the manifestation of the power elites' influence in getting billion-dollar handouts. For example, The Feds announced that Volkswagon would receive 13 Billion dollars over ten years for producing batteries for Electric Vehicles with the intent of creating thousands of jobs. If job creation is ever realized, that is another story.

The payout to Volkswagon is just on the incident. There have been many more.

From 2007 until 2019, the Federal, Provincial and local governments have given 352 Billion dollars to the Corporate welfare bums. It appears that power elites see their needs as paramount to the health needs of Canadians. Big pharmaceuticals owe the taxpayers 44 billion dollars for their role in the opioid epidemic. Add all the tax loops and tax incentives that the big corporation and money mongers receive. There should be enough money to pay competitive salaries for Doctors and anyone else in the healthcare profession.

The problem is that all governments look after the interests of the wealthy, and health care needs to be at the top of the list, not the bottom.

Another strategy is allowing qualified medical newcomers to practice medicine. If qualification is an issue, the solution is to have them do an internship.

Premier of Ontario Doug Ford is considering allowing doctors from out of province to practice in his province at salaries that exceed what the province of New Brunswick is willing to pay.

Another challenge is the debt load that a medical student must bear: four years for an undergraduate degree, then another four years for medical school at 25,000 per year, which translates to 200,000$, so why stay in a province that pays only peanuts? Since the 70s' the cost of attending post-secondary university or post-graduate has surpassed what most can afford to pay unless mummy or daddy can bankroll the costs.

The only way to change the government's priorities is through citizen action. That action may be in the form of protests. Press releases, strategic voting. The final word is "People before profits."

---

Understanding Socialism: Sharing and Caring for Everyone that Your Grade 5 Child can Understand

 By Andre Faust (Oct 23, 2024)

political and social ideologies are filled with complexities, and the "game" is influenced by so many factors that predicting outcomes is extremely difficult. Every ideology, including socialism, capitalism, or democracy, operates within unique cultural, historical, and economic contexts. Even the most carefully designed systems can have unpredictable results due to human behaviour, random events, and unforeseen circumstances.

When I look at the most common posts regarding political ideologies, I realize that many who post have little to no understanding of political ideologies, provincial and international relations (geopolitics), and how they are interconnected. (Fortunately, there are others who have a deep understanding of these relationships and comprehend how the game is played.)

I look at our southern neighbour, the United States, and the way they handle their politics reminds me of classic TV shows like "The Gong Show" or "The Mickey Mouse Club." The band Green Day captured this sentiment well with their song "American Idiot." Why do Canadians want to become Americanized? Character assassinations does not deal with issues that we face as a country.

Both Trump and Harris have used false information and half-truths. The only difference between the two is that Harris is more refined when it comes to debates.

What amazes me is that some very intelligent people still can't grasp these concepts. Despite life experience or formal post-secondary education, they seem to have no clue how the game is played. In general, it seems like they can't see past their own backyard.

What gave me the idea was a Facebook post in response to my critique of the capitalist system. The person replied, "Is socialism better?" Before answering, I wanted to understand his level of knowledge, so I asked, "How do you define socialism?" There was no response.

As a result, I formulated a definition of socialism in terms that a fifth grader would understand.

Socialism: Socialism is like when a group of friends decides to share everything so that no one is left out. Imagine you and your friends all have toys, but some have a lot, and some have very few. In socialism, everyone agrees to share the toys so that everyone has enough to play with. It's a system where people work together and make sure everyone gets what they need, like food, housing, and education, so no one goes without. The idea is to help everyone have a good life, not just a few people. - that is as simple as it gets.

The common one dimensional rebuttals are:

1. Less Motivation to Work Hard: Imagine if everyone in your class got the same grade, no matter how hard they studied. Some might think, "Why should I study if I’m going to get the same grade anyway?" Socialism can sometimes make people feel less motivated to work hard because everyone gets the same rewards, even if they don’t do the same amount of work.

2. Not Enough Freedom to Choose: In socialism, the government often makes decisions about what jobs people can have or what things they can buy. Some people don’t like this because they feel they should be free to make their own choices, like choosing their favourite games or hobbies, instead of someone deciding for them.

3. Sharing Might Not Always Be Fair: While sharing is a good thing, some people think socialism isn’t always fair because if someone works very hard and someone else doesn’t work much at all, they both still get the same amount of things. Some people believe that those who work harder should get more rewards.

At this tells me is that they don't understand socialism, they only have a general idea, but there are many other forms of socialism.

To provide some examples:

Many forms of socialism emphasize meeting people's basic needs while still encouraging creativity and hard work. Some people are motivated by more than just money, like contributing to their community or gaining recognition for their skills.

Still in other versions of socialism, people still have many choices, but the government or community helps provide basic services, like healthcare and education, so everyone can live well.

Lastly, those who have a worldview of socialism, beyond what the propaganda machine tries to sell, will argue that fairness also means ensuring no one struggles to survive just because they had fewer opportunities or faced challenges beyond their control, like illness or bad luck.

---