The Paikin Podcast - World on Edge: Will the Assassination of Charlie Kirk Lead to Civil War?

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

Michael Ignatieff joins Janice Stein to discuss the murder of Charlie Kirk, if it could lead to increased political violence and even civil war, the rise of authoritarianism worldwide, the state of democracy in Canada, and if we are prepared for an unstable and chaotic America. Follow The Paikin Podcast: TWITTERx.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAMinstagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKYbsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social

Hi, everybody, and thanks for joining us again here on the Paken podcast. We call this biweekly segment World on Edge because it seems that there's so much about today's world that is just upside down. We have one of the world's foremost observers of international affairs joining Janice Stein and me this week. He's taught at Harvard. He teaches at Central European University in Vienna, which has truly given him a front row seat to so much of the increasing authoritarianism we see in the world these days. you will also remember him as a former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Michael Ignathev, coming right up on the Paken podcast. Delighted to welcome back, Janice Stein, from the Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and this week's special guest, Michael Ignatiof, who joins us from Vienna, Austria.

I am delighted to be joined by two such august professors for this discussion. How's everybody doing tonight? That's great to be here. Great to be with Janice. Michael Ignatty, I want to start with you, because as I suggested in the intro, you've had a front row seat to the sort of increasing marginalization of democracy and the burgeoning authoritarianism in Eastern Europe. As you think back, on the last six or seven decades of your life, how would you compare your level of concern about democracy today with what it is? it might have been in the past? Well, when I was a kid in the 60s, we need to remember that we weren't in a democratic world.

We had half of the world was behind the Iron Curtain and lots of authoritarian regimes in Latin America. And then we had a period 20, 30 years, when democracy seemed to be moving and more and more states were consolidating as democracies. Hungary, where I spent a certain amount of time, I married a Hungarian. It is a case in point, came out of 89 transition to democracy, and then from 2010 onwards began to walk back to what is now a single party authoritarian state that is ratified by democracy, by free elections, but it's not free at all. And that's characteristic of a lot of places now, and we now fear that that may be what's happening to our neighbor to the south. Janice, how about you on that score?

Your level of concern today compared to where you may have been in the past? Oh, I think, honestly, it's probably the highest it's ever been. Michael, you know, the way you characterize the world is absolutely right. But there were bedrock democracies, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, that were probably the most familiar to Canadians. France and Germany had a somewhat different. past in the 30s and the 40s, Italy. But our neighbors, they were bedrock democracies.

And for the first time ever, and I think that's why my concern is that the level that it is at is those bedrock democracies that are experiencing, I think in the United States, it is already an authoritarian society. It's not on the path. It is already. And in Britain, you have a prime minister who support its dropping, and you have a resurgent, you know, Farange-led party in the UK. I never thought I would see either.

Well, let me get Michael Ignatiof on that. If 10 is Athenian-style democratic bliss and zero is the worst dictatorship imaginable, where do you put the United States today? complicated question between five and six it's complicated because the courts are still operating you know the place where i taught for years just got a victory in a federal court a number of key decisions are made that turning back trump degrees on forced from people out of the country So there is pushback at the judiciary. There is no pushback in Congress that I can see.

And there is not much pushback in what is called civil society, but I think there will be increasing amounts of pushback. I don't think this thing is over. I don't like the language, for example, of fascism to describe the United States. I don't think this is fascism. I think it's something else. It's an authoritarian consolidation. question about it. It's dangerous. It could go to full-scale authoritarianism if he

deploys the military on the streets of all the cities and takes over police powers, those kind of things. I think we need to watch very carefully how the military respond to essentially a request to violate their constitutional oaths. And that's when we will tip into a place that we've absolutely never seen. It's very, very bad, but we need to always focus empirically on what is and what isn't happening. And at the moment, the resistance to the courts is the one thing that I think is very important. The other thing also is a free press. Well, some of it. I mean, there is Fox News out there. Yeah, oh, sure, but I'm afraid you don't like it. I don't like it, but it's part of a free press. So these are signs that this is.

is still a functioning democracy. But Janice is right. This place is in the kind of trouble that she and I have never seen in our lifetimes. And Canadians have never seen in our lifetimes. And it's not alarmist and it's not catastrophizing to say it. This is a very serious moment. And our democracy is always dependent on the strength of American democracy. And we need to be extremely vigilant about any spread northwards of what I think is poison. get to that in a second. I'm actually interested in Janice's view about the U.S. compared to Hungary. And then, Michael, given your experience with Hungary, I'll get you to comment on what she thinks. Janice, who's further along the continuum towards authoritarianism today?

The U.S. or Hungary? Oh, I don't think there's any question. Hungary is further along the continuum. And it's interesting, you know, Michael, you just used a word, which I think is really apt authoritarian consolidation. So which institutions no longer have independence? I think you're slightly more optimistic about the courts in the United States than I am because the judgments that you're talking about are lower level, federal decisions. They're going to all appeal. And if you look at the record of this Supreme Court, it's not encouraging, frankly. And to make a statement you just did, no pushback from civil society. Frankly, not much pushback from universities.

Not much, let's be honest. Or television networks. News departments. Or television networks. Or in or, you know, in or, what, We're civil society organizations, Steve, you know, that are so important, NGOs. Nobody is so unlike Trump one, nobody's in the streets as we see, except, of course, for the National Guard. That's in the street to Washington.

And there was a remarkable piece yesterday, which described how, yes, crime is dropped in Washington. but so is all most of cultural life has dropped, most social activity is fading. As people don't come together because they're afraid. And that's what's remarkable, I think, about how far along the United States is. There's fear at a level in which there hasn't been before. There have always been marginalized communities in the United States.

They're afraid of the police and afraid of law enforcement. If you're black, you have deeply engraved memories and, you know, police are the adversary. But this is, that has spread to large segments of the population and fear when the public's afraid, that is the virus that affects almost all kinds of political behaviors. you know, I go to the United States quite often, and people are simply speculating whether there will be midterm elections or whether a national emergency will occur, which will make those midterm elections impossible. Well, in which case I want to hear, I want to hear Michael Ignatio then on whether Hungary or the U.S., which concerns you more in terms of its authoritarianism.

Well, I'd agree with Janice. I've been agreeing with Janice for 40 years. So why don't I continue, but I would add a caveat again, one of the most extraordinary phenomenon that nobody is watching but is crucial is Victor Orban is facing the most serious electoral democratic challenge in the 15 years that he's been in power. So let's not say the game is over. And I would say the same thing in the United States. Let's not say the game is over.

All the signs are worrying. It's late innings. you know, we might be top of the ninth, but I think it's terribly important and not to predict outcomes that we simply can't predict. On the Supreme Court, I think Janice has made a very important point. All these court challenges will come up to the Supreme Court. The one aspect of that we need to remember is that, you know, yes, they're Republican judges, many of them appointed by Trump. But let's also remember that the Supreme Court has a profound institutional obligation and interest to defend its prerogatives.

And there will come a point in which Trump goes too far in terms of their prerogatives. And at that point, we get pushback. Then we have a constitutional crisis and we'll just have to see what happens. But I think it's very important not to assume the game has been played until we see it play out. This is ancient constitutional machinery that's been on for 200 years. It's had some very bad moments.

Liberals don't like to remember. but, you know, Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1938. We now look back on that as an authoritarian move that basically he couldn't get through. I have some confidence, not unlimited confidence, that resistance will begin to consolidate. But look, I was in New York last week, and yes, Janice is right. People are asking, are we going to have elections in 2026, or is he going to declare some state of martial law that allows him to suspend them or abrogate them if he feels he's going to lose? them. These are questions we've never asked before in American democracy. And so, you know,

I share all these concerns. I just, what I don't like is catastrophizing. What I don't like is a kind of pessimism that says it's over. And I've lived in the United States and part of the United States for half of my adult life, and it's continually surprises you. I do believe America will surprise us again. Well, let me read something here that Marjorie Taylor Green, the what shall I call her, controversial congresswoman from Georgia, she posted this on X after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She said there's nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us. They assassinated our nice guy who actually talked to them peacefully debating ideas. I want a peaceful national divorce. Our country is too far gone and too far divided and it's no longer safe for any of us. what will come from Charlie Kirk being martyred is already happening. Michael, I appreciate you don't want to engage in a game of catastrophizing, but that's basically an elected official saying, you know,

either we're going back to the days of north and south or red states, blue states, civil war. I don't know what. Is this an historic turning point for the United States right now? Well, I wouldn't trust anything that Marjorie Taylor Green told me, even if I, you know, she's just at the outer edges here. And I think there has been a torrent of, you know, catastrophically irresponsible talk in the wake of the abominable assassination of Charlie Kirk.

For example, just to give you the example, when Marjorie Taylor Green talks about the left, I ask myself, what, excuse my line, the hell are you talking about? about. I'm a progressive, I'm a liberal, but I'm not on the left. There's no such thing as the left. The idea that the left encourages, believes in, supports the assassination of political figures is just not a serious remark. It's an inflammatory remark designed to actually create the thing that it says it doesn't want to happen. Do you know what I mean? This is as irresponsible or a mark as a public official can make. And there's a lot of it around, and it's all got to stop. It's got to stop on the side of Democrats and progressives, and it's got to stop on everybody's side.

Because the one thing that I, you know, having been in politics, politics is our alternative to war. The genius of democratic politics is that it keeps the struggle for power, which having done some struggling for power, is a brutal business. But it keeps it civil. It keeps it. this side of violence. It's incredibly important that everybody steps back everywhere, including in Canada, about this. We need to keep talking and talking and disagreeing and talking and talking and more talking. That's the only solution. And when she talks like that, it just makes me, it makes me angry, but it also makes me deeply contemptuous. This kind of stuff, loose lips sink ships this is a way to sink the ship we got to stop it well you know it's really interesting

as you say this michael because she said talking talking and even when we disagree keep talking she was talking uh and there were if you follow the conversation so we're two in the wake of and let's make clear nobody in their right mind um um would do anything but abhor the assassination of Charlotte Kirk, right? That is a violent solution to the politics of somebody you disagree with. And violence is just off the table. So whether you disagree or find his views offensive, it doesn't really matter. You come out and you condemn unequivocally the use of violence.

Now, what really happened if you track who is? was talking when and where after that assassination. So people in official positions did that. But boy, on social media, it lit up. And some of the most extreme language, and I will say from all corners of the political spectrum erupted and appalling. It really was appalling and gave Donald Trump. exactly what

the playbook that all authoritarian use, which is something happens of that sword and people have loose lips, which is the most charitable description I can think of

Michael for what people. It's charitable, but you're talking about the Reichstag fire. I mean, you're talking about the ways in which historically authoritarian leaders have used an atrocity. to consolidate. And that's, there's no question, that's a, that's a danger. I think what it brings home to me as an ex-retiring, recovering politician, is a

paradox about democracy we don't talk about enough, which is in the battle for power, in the competition, which has become more polarized and more aggressive over time. One of the things we never talk about is our loyalty, not to the party, but to the system. So the idea that we all as Democrats, whatever our political agency, have a loyalty to the thing that makes this possible, the institutions that stabilize and equilibrate and moderate and, you know, it's like, you know, in a baseball game, we have a weird loyalty to our team, but we also have a loyalty to the game, bringing the game into distribute. We even have a loyalty to those damn umpires who we disagree with. we think. And it's pretty important now that we get some loyalty to the game. But here's the difference. Here's the difference. Thinking back on violent episodes in U.S. history. And there were really black periods, as Michael you rightly said. But more recently in our lifetimes, presidents were

mourners in chief, right? They rose to the occasion. They tried to use language to unify people. to bring people together in shared grief. Not this guy. Captured it. He used it in a strident attack on the left. And we'll probably use this as the pretext for national guards in other cities that are democratic strongholds. That's the worrying thing that we see in the politics of the United States, which we haven't seen before. Can I just be clear on that with you, Michael Ignatio, I know we're not in the prediction business here, but Janice has laid it on the table, and you have used the Reichstag analogy.

Do we suspect that the administration is going to use this assassination of Charlie Kirk to do its worst? I think we have no way of actually knowing, but the history, the analogy of the Reichstag fire in 1933 is that Locusts, classicists of an authoritarian regime using a crime against democracy to extinguish democracy. And we have the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a crime against democracy. No question about it. And it is conceivable that some of the hard men in that administration, Stephen Miller and others, may think this is the opportunity we've been waiting for. And if that's the case, then all people who love democracy are going to have to get in the street.

say stop. I mean, you know, this thing can't be settled. You know, a minute ago I was talking about we got to talk, talk, talk. There are moments when we have to put ourselves in the streets. And I put myself in the street between 1965 and 1974 to stop the war in Vietnam. I'm sure Janice was there too. You just, you know, those will be the moments. Those have to be peaceful. They have to be civil disobedience if necessary, but always peaceful, never violence. But, you know, you put enough people in the street, you can stop a lot of things, including authoritarian takeover. I just think the thing that is paralyzing everywhere is a sense of passivity, sense of watching this monstrous made-for-television spectacular that never stops. Kind of permanent apprentice is like a nightmare.

You can't wait from it. You can't turn off this television show. And that is, I think, deliberately designed to create a sense of hopeless fatality and passivity in Canada, especially, and other places. And we've got to hold on to, if we're believe in democracy through our sense of agency, our sense of capacity. And I'm sure I actually think we will. I don't feel pessimistic at all. But we're all going to sit there and quietly let it happen. I think when push comes to shove, there will be shove back.

And there must be. The other side of this, though, is failure to warn. And so it's a fun line. You know what? I was at dinner last night and everybody said, let's not turn this dinner into a dirge. I understand because, well, that told you two things. You know, one that analytically, people are really deeply worried by what they're seeing. but they understand how if you let that become passivity.

But if you don't call it out, Michael, what gets people into the streets? That's, you know, that's the big issue. And so there's a duty to warn at the, as we see. And, you know, as we say it's sports, this is next level what we're seeing. This is not politics as usual. I describe, it's just not. I describe this president as a revolutionary. And I do it on purpose because I'm trying to make the point.

This is out of bounds what we're seeing, right? This is a revolutionary attack on the fundamental institutions of the United States. And we all have to understand that's what it is. So then it becomes a judgment call. Yeah, I agree with you about that. I put it slightly differently, slightly more personally. I see it very much as a revolution against, it's a counter-revolution against the revolution that began the 60s, the revolution of inclusion, I call it the rights revolution

of book I wrote 25 years ago, the revolution that gave us civil rights, black equality at the ballot box, feminism, gay rights. and the creation of a multicultural society, that entire achievement, which was essentially the liberal achievement from 1965 to 2020, they're leading a counter-revolution against that, unstitching that, taking it back, and going after the institutions, for example, the universities where that revolution was promoted and flourished. And so the We have to understand, you're entirely right, we have to understand it as a revolutionary day. It's also an attack, as you're saying, against the constitutional architecture set up by

James Madison. I mean, you know, what a liberal believes is power, checks power to keep the people free. That's the deal. That's what we believe. He wants power essentially unlimited, And that's a mortal threat to the American Democratic experience. So where are the Congress people? Okay. Steve, that's what's stunning to me. Michael said, well, you know, these Supreme Court judges. And I actually believe judges are at some point judges.

They are trained. They, that legal training kicks in. So I have residual hope to, but it's residual. You know, he is, and he has pulled back power. from Congress on issue after issue after issue after issue. Where are these Congress people? Where's the sense of it is our constitutional obligation to defend the rights of Congress? They're in a fight for their own survival, Janice.

They realize any one of them can be primaried by the president and therefore how courageous can they be? Well, you know, so you lose your seats, Steve. Well, that's a big deal for some people. Yeah, but you know what I'm saying? if there's no line. I think it's the analogy that I, or the thing I'd like to go back to as a historical comparison is McCarthy, the McCarthy period. My folks happened to be in Washington right through the McCarthy period when I was an infant, and they never forgot the atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

Congress was completely cowled by a demagogue, a less serious demagogue than Trump, because he was a senator, not the president, who he had less power. But boy, he ruined lives. He terrorized whole industries like the film industry. He terrorized the entire bureaucracy of the United States, not for months, but for years. And finally, someone, you know, in the famous army hearings in the Congress said, you know, finally, Mr. Senator, have you know, I can't remember the words. Have you no decency? I do no decency. Joseph Willsh.

And suddenly it turned. That's not to the credit of Congress. It's astonishing that it took so long, but it did turn. And I think there is bound to be a moment in which Congress will wake up to its constitutional responsibilities. And also, because no one's a saint, see that there's a political. advantage to doing so. And it's that moment in which virtue seems like a paying political path. And we're waiting for that moment. It hasn't come, but I believe it will come. I want to turn the discussion to Canada now because, you know, there's no doubt a strain

within Canada which believes our democratic values are so ingrained that we don't have to worry about the kind of encroaching authoritarianism that we've seen in other countries around the world. And I want to gauge from the two of you whether we have any business feeling that way. Janice, start us off. Oh, I think we have to worry. I think it would be so foolish, Steve, given what we've seen in the United States, given what we are seeing in the United Kingdom. Mowing Le Pen with 40%, you know, the AFD in Germany, 20% in the last election. You know, I just said something which I will probably be sorry for, but there it is.

There's one thread that ties Kathmandu to Berlin and Tokyo to Paris and New York and Ottawa. It's men principally 40 and under who feel the system has failed them. it's not working for them it's rigged they're angry their futures are not but they hope they would be

through no fault of their own there are minority in universities now they're dropping out of high school this is not a US phenomenon it's a global phenomenon

and why would we in Canada be exempt Michael how do you see it I think that's an important true fact I mean, I think, in fact, the person who is accused, he has to be tried by a court of the assassination of Charlie Kirk would fit into that category. A person who killed the health executive in the streets of New York put in that category. And so I think there's no doubt.

There's some deep crisis in masculinity. There's some deep crisis in the opportunity of a generation to get a house, get a home, get a family, a life, get a job, get a career, get a path. And what I would add to that is that in the Canadian context, the vector that I see is the growing divide between the standard of living in the United States and the standard of living in Canada. That is, we're in a productivity crisis that is producing a fiscal crisis of the state in the sense that we have in entitlements and expectations of the state, which are, I think, are horrific and legitimate, but we can't afford them. And we're not generating enough income and wealth to pay for them. You wrote about this on your substack last week, and I want to come back to that in a second.

But I first want to push back on Janus a little bit here. I'll play devil's advocate. You know, in the last federal election, Janice, the People's Party under Maxime Bernier, which sort of is advancing an agenda probably similar to what you've just described. they were nowhere. They won no seats. Their vote went down. Pierre Pauliev, certainly at the leader's debate, presented himself as a more moderate figure than he ever had during his time as opposition leader. Can we say that the bulwark is holding in Canada against authoritarianism with some confidence right now? Well, you know, it's interesting because the argument is really about it's not about Bernier, who's not a very credible politician on the broader Canadian scene. And

And Paul, yeah, I did say a few things during the last election campaign that just made my ears point up, as they say, which, you know, he's very similar language about attacking universities to the language that Donald Trump used. That is not, that was populist language, Steve, which doesn't fit the normal bill of sale for Tory leaders. down on torching the CBC as well. Yes, he did. He did. He did. There's no question. But look at the vote. The vote in the country was Mark Carney was

elected by the 50-plus-year-olds. And why did Palliab do as well as he did in the country? He did very well, which the Queen of Victory obscured, but Palliab grew the size of the Tory vote.

In many ways, it was very successful. campaign mainly men 35 and under that's where the increase in his vote came from so if you actually look at the vote steve you're seeing a familiar pattern but wait a minute i i'd be i never thought a moment would come in my life when i would have something good to say about pierre paulia but i would be very careful yeah i agree uh his politics with a far right appeal to the disson franchise male. I just, I think that's, be careful there because he gave a long interview to Jordan Peterson. Well, yeah. That is that platform. I did some stupid things in politics. That sounds like a particularly stupid thing to have done. But, you know, I think you've got to be,

you got to be nuanced and carefully. My sense about the Canadian political system is that the problem is not that there is going to be some avatar. of right wing, right wing masculinist nationalism in Canada. I don't think that's the problem. My worry is that the Canadian federal state and the provincial systems are simply not going to deliver for their citizens. That is, we're not generating a standard of living that allows us to meet the expectations that people have. That creates a dynamic of disillusion, not just for, you know, men, but for women, for pretty well everybody. And that then produces anger. A suppressed, but growing prices of the state.

You look at the budget that the current prime minister is going to have to put together this autumn. This is not an abstraction. I just don't know how the hell he's going to square the circle. Well, let's follow up on this because you wrote about this in your substack last week. And you were, I know there are many people in Canada who would love to deposit all of their concerns about the state of our economy at the door of Donald Trump, but you were pretty tough in saying, the enemy is us. What did you mean by that? Well, just that I wasn't pointing the figure at Mark Carney, who I respect, and I wish him luck. God knows that's a tough hand to deal.

I was looking more generally at liberal democracies everywhere. You know, I happen to have a form. student of mine was the minister of budget in the last French government. And she was sitting here with a $40 billion program to reduce the deficit from 5.8 of GDP to 5.3. And the government blew up. You look at Britain, the same tremendous pressure on their budgets. You look at Canada, tremendous pressures on the budgets. The big geostrategic issue is that the American economy and the American tech sector is innovating at a terrifying rate, concentrating power and resources and capital. And liberal democracies that used to be easy allies of the United States and got a lot of the backwash of their prosperity are now regarded as competitors. And we have a fiscal crisis

of the state that's becoming endemic and is going to produce tremendous dissolution with our political system. Mark Carney is going to have to go to the country and say, we've got to pay more in order to sustain this great Canadian experiment. And then the question will be is whether he can get Canadians to agree with them and go through a period of some sacrifice in order to get this ship righted. The Canadian economy is just not productive enough. And it's the same story in Britain. It's the same story in France. And it's absolutely the story in Germany. You can't maintain a democracy if it doesn't solve its economic problems. And all of these countries are failing to solve their economic problems. And let me just agree with Michael.

Only more so, right? And that's a deep concern I have, Steve, about the politics we have in Canada right now. All too easy to point the finger at the United States. and say, well, all the economic dislocations are the result of tariffs. And what are we going to do about that? We're simply going to spend more to compensate those sectors of the economy that are badly hit by tariffs, where they're losing jobs. And there are. And the hit is, I think, much bigger than the public understands because we actually have factories moving across the border to the United States to get behind the tariff. that politics is going to go nowhere as far as I'm concerned because for how long can we compensate?

We can't afford it. And we have to turn the conversation to. And I agree a thousand percent with Michael here. It's about us. What are we doing to invest in our own country? What are we doing to build? What are we doing to innovate? How do we take the strangle off the innovation economy?

in this country. Some of that has to be very dramatic and there's huge resistance to change in this country. There is an inertia. And it comes, I think, because people are not looking out and seeing,

you know, I was in a discussion about health care to take one example and we all know how much health care consumes of the Canadian budget. But look south of the border and we all like to market the rate of innovation. in health care.

And not only on the science end of it, in patient care, right? In the new models. And we are way behind. We're not in the conversation, frankly. And we use our energy to blame the United States. If we don't use the crisis, if we don't use the opportunity that Donald Trump has given this country

to take a hard look at ourselves and push ourselves to do better, we will have wasted probably a once-in-a-hundred-year opportunity. The only thing I'd add, Steve, I don't want to keep pushing you out of the frame. It's just one additional thought, which is when I, when you said, and I've said, the problem is us, part of the problem is democracy. One of the uncomfortable issues for Canada. And I want to be careful about how I say this, because we have a democracy, we have a federal system that gives enormous power to provinces. That's, I think, a good thing for a country our size.

We have consultation processes with Aboriginal Canadians and other groups that is something we should be proud of. It's one of the reasons where a peaceable kingdom is, as a great Canadian said, along. long time ago. But now, at a moment when we have to act quickly, act fast, scale up, do national projects, the veto systems throughout our democracy are a bit of a problem. And we're going to have to look very carefully at that. I don't know what the solution is. Some of it's just leadership, persuasion, whatever. But Mark Carney is going to have a very difficult time getting a national conviction that we have to move together because the veto points are separated right across the country in all our groups. It's a strength of our country, but it's now a bit of a

problem. Can I ask you to gentlemen and question both of you? So I see you. Do you believe that this prime minister needs to issue a call to action? Talk again about. about the fact that we are in an existential crisis. And, you know, to use JFK's good old line, what are you going to do for your country instead of asking what your country can do for you? This is not more time. Don't you think he thinks he has done that, though?

But that's not what Canadians are hearing, in all honesty. If you, when you look at public opinion polls, they're not hearing the message that there is. But he has said numerous times, we've got to go faster, harder, and more bold, than at any time since the end of the Second World War. He says it all the time. Yeah.

What's missing, though, and this is where we started, Michael and I, what's missing, I think, is a sense of crisis. That these are not normal times for this time. And that so much the future of the country is at stake, usually we justify that because of a war. That gets people out of the, that's not accurate in this case but it is an existential crisis that we face

there are deep threats to our economic future and not those threats as Michael is just saying we'll spill over into democracy if we don't address them right I'd like to hear the former leader of the liberal party give the current leader of the liberal party some advice on how to handle all this well see it's pretty funny

since the Canadian public decided that I lack any kind of political judgment. I hesitate to give a man who's successfully come prime minister any advice. I think the rallying cry, I kind of, I'm kind of between the two of you. I think Steve is right to say he's been issuing Clarion calls for a while. You're picking up the fact that they're not really being heard and that people are kind of saying, well, could we get back to the housing crisis or, you know, something just, you know, all this is too big for me to think about. And I think that the lesson I would take from

the last leader I witnessed in person who managed to do this for Canadians, who was Pierre Trudeau, who just said, here is the thing we've got to do. It's called a Constitution and a charter of rights. And I am. going to go through hell or high water to get there. Are you with me or not? I don't care. I'm going this way. You know, that kind of, that was the thing about him that was just so unforgettable. It's funny you use that expression. Let me jump in for a second. The hell or high water, I tripped myself into a second example of that with Martin and Critcham. Exactly. That's the expression Paul Martin used what he said we're going to balance.

There's some kind of moment that picking those. two examples then that Carney has got to find because, and it may come with a budget. And the difficult part of it, as I've been saying, I think Janis is saying, is none of this is cost-free. This is a campaign to write the economy that requires some sacrifice and some difficulty and some reapportionment of burdens. and that's where he's got a level with Canadians. And that's tough.

But somehow trim it down. There's one damn thing we have got to do as a country. Janice is very important remark, which needs to be picked up on, which is we can't keep subsidizing industries that are going south anyway. We've got to find some new industries. We've got to find some new investments. We've got to find some new national sources. sources of wealth. That's a very courageous and important message, but it's not the message

that's coming through when he says, I'm going to build a new port in Churchill. It's somehow that isn't registering. The economic imperative is not somehow been closed on. Just for those who don't know, you mentioned that it was a famous Canadian once upon a time who described us as a peaceable kingdom. Who would that have been? Oh, God. I'm Bill Kilbourne. Wasn't that? Got it. I believe so. Okay. I wasn't sure, which is why I thought I'd ask. You know, I'm tempted to check it out right now. We got these beautiful things here called the Mr. Google machine. Okay, Mr. Google, who called Canada a peaceable kingdom once upon a time. And I push go, and the answer is, now can I read this thing? Canada, peaceable kingdom. No. When I want AI to come through for me on a moment's notice,

now it doesn't. There's a AI is so ignorant, you know, they're terrible. They don't know anything. Oh, it might have been Northrop Fryeup, according to this. God. Well, boy, that's happy. I went to Victoria College. Happy to be correct. and happy that it's nari-frived. Worse for me, I went to Victoria College, and I should know that. Great man. I want to close here just by referring to the last substack column that Michael Ignatiov wrote, and I encourage everybody to subscribe to it because it's very good.

Happy anniversary, Mr. Ignatiov, 26 years to Susanna, your wonderful, beautiful, brilliant Hungarian wife. Thank you. And how's things going? Well, I wrote a substacks a little, it's very sweet of you to mention it, just to celebrate 26 years of marriage, I guess because I'm sure Janice feels exactly the same about her beloved husband whom she lost a while ago. You know, in times of, you know, historical alarm in terms of, you know, historical alarm, in terms of, you know, times of political stress and times of where all the narratives that we inherited seem to be just abandoned and lost, it's pretty important to remember the importance of love and kinship

and friendship and family ties. It's just, you know, there are things that are, in my view, indestructible about human life. And they can. keep us all going. And, you know, my marriage is one of them. There you go. It was a lovely column. Let me just add the AI I use said Ramsey Cook. There you go.

A great historian that we all do. Well, if everybody has to be going forward, I'm going to say, I'm going to say Michael Ignatty have said it. Well, no, no, no, we're going to give Michael a piece of research and homework to do. and he's going to write us back. You said it, Michael. Tables turn. I want to thank both of you for coming on this podcast this week.

It's really been a joy to talk to both of you. Peace and love, everybody. Michael Ignatty of Janice Stein. Until next time. Until next time.