On a Saturday in the second week of January, my brother-in-law asked a question about Donald Trump.
We were sitting at the kitchen table in his house and the TV was on in the next room, showing the Chiefs vs. Dolphins in an NFL game from Kansas City, where the temperature was about -20 C.
He may have made a statement rather than asked a question, but to paraphrase what he said: “I don’t understand how anyone could vote for Trump. What are they thinking? Why would anyone vote for a criminal, who tried to overthrow the government?”
Read Also
Keep it clean on pre-harvest chemical use
Canadian farmers urged to toe the line on pre-harvest pesticide application and market product restrictions to avoid grain marketing headaches.
A good question, and a sincere one.
He truly doesn’t understand why tens of millions of Americans (and Canadians) support Donald J. Trump.
I didn’t respond and changed the topic to the Chiefs-Dolphins game, mostly because I wasn’t interested in a 45 minute conversation about Trump with my brother-in-law, who could be described as an NDP voter, or a vocal supporter of the political left.
What’s more interesting to me is that people like my brother-in-law have zero insight into the popularity of former president Trump.
They just don’t get it.
Sometimes, I also find it confusing.
But a lot of Trump’s appeal can be explained by Isaac Newton and his Third Law of Motion.
Newton probably used different words in 1686, but a NASA website summarizing the Third Law of Motion says: “Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.”
To break it down, the first part of the Third Law of Motion says, “whenever one object exerts a force on another object.”
The force in this case is a political and social force — not Trump, but the people who oppose Trump.
Supporters of the political left in Canada and the United States typically have loud and forceful positions on what is right and what is wrong.
They share their opinions on social media, in the conventional media and at kitchen tables.
To highlight a few of their stances:
- Eating meat is immoral and livestock are destroying the planet.
- Good people drive electric cars, take the bus or ride a bike.
- The petroleum industry is unsustainable and should be eliminated.
- Gender is a social construct, not a biological reality
I could go on and on, with many other examples, but the point is straightforward — many people on the political left are completely convinced that they’re correct (about everything), and they feel compelled to impose their will on the rest of society.
What that looks like is laws, regulations, taxation and policies that force their beliefs upon the rest of the population. Canada’s federal carbon tax is a perfect example.
As Newton said, they are exerting their force on another object.
What my brother-in-law and like-minded folks don’t understand is the other part of Newton’s Third Law of Motion — the “second object exerts an equal and opposite (force) on the first.”
To put it simply: if you punch someone in the face, they’re going to punch back.
The world of agriculture is a good example of how the punch back can be just as powerful as the initial blow.
For a decade or longer, a loose-knit group of organizations have essentially declared war on modern agriculture.
Animal welfare groups, environmental organizations, urban media, political leaders, Hollywood actors and many others have pointed their fingers at farms and farmers.
Their criticisms? Farmers are cruel to livestock, methane emissions from cattle are poisoning the atmosphere, fertilizer emissions are also poisoning the atmosphere, pesticides are unnecessary and the usual slanderous phrases such as “factory farming” and “corporate farms.”
Such attacks have prompted a reaction from farmers and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work in the agri-food industry.
The moralizing and criticisms have become so insistent and so tiresome that many producers are now rejecting all ideas and programs that require them to change, even programs that originate from within agriculture.
In 2020, the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops proposed a concept called Responsible Grain.
It was a voluntary code of practice so farmers could demonstrate their commitment and care for the environment. It was touted as a tool that could improve market access for Canadian grains and build trust with consumers.
There was one problem. Most farmers hated the concept, and the roundtable was forced to abandon Responsible Grain.
Leaders of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops commented on the pushback in early January.
“One of the concerns that farmers have is they only get grief. They don’t get credit for all of the changes they have made over time,” said Susie Miller, the roundtable’s executive director.
“We were told very plainly by the farmers that they weren’t looking for an assurance protocol.”
This sort of reaction from Canada’s farm community is unlikely to abate.
What this mean, is that voluntary programs and federal targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are probably doomed to fail.
When a group of people have been condemned, criticized and pushed upon for years, they’re not going respond to simplistic urgings such as the “world has changed” and you “need to get on board.”
They instead will turn to someone who gives voice to their frustrations and is willing to push back against the mob.
If that means supporting an immoral and deranged former president of the United States, so be it.
Contact robert.arnason@producer.com
