In God we Trust Or At Least That’s How It Should Be

I should know better. Especially at my age. How can I still be this naive? Let’s come back to that though.

I spent ten years in the Canadian Navy and while most of that time was spent in engine rooms and offices, I have a soft spot for the sayings from the days of sailing ships. It’s surprising how many maritime practices have seamlessly integrated into everyday language:

• Batten Down the Hatches - Originally, this referred to securing a ship's hatches with wooden battens in preparation for stormy weather. Today, it means preparing for a crisis.

• Three Sheets to the Wind - In sailing, a "sheet" is a rope controlling a sail. If three sheets are loose ("to the wind"), the ship becomes unsteady. This phrase now describes someone who is very drunk.

• By and Large - Combining "by," meaning into the wind, and "large," meaning with the wind, sailors used this term to indicate a ship could sail well under various conditions. It now means "generally speaking" or "on the whole."

• Know the Ropes - Sailors had to learn the complex system of ropes on a ship. This phrase now means being familiar with the details of a task or operation.

• Loose Cannon - A cannon that broke loose on a ship's deck was dangerous. Now, it describes an unpredictable or uncontrollable person.

• Over a Barrel - Sailors were sometimes tied over a barrel for punishment, leaving them helpless. The phrase now refers to being in a difficult or powerless position.

The author pictured during his Navy days

One of my favorites is “between the devil and the deep blue sea.” Historically, it’s tied to nautical language: the "devil" refers to a seam on a ship’s hull that’s hard to reach and repair, while the "deep blue sea" is the obvious danger of the ocean. The phrase describes being in a difficult or dangerous situation where you are forced to choose between two undesirable options, or more broadly, any no-win situation. For you landlubbers, it roughly translates to “between a rock and a hard place.”

If you aren’t a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat or Republican, that phrase likely describes the situation you found yourself in on Nov 5^th, 2024, having to choose between the “devil you know and the devil you don’t.”

It must be nice to always know which party you’re going to vote for. The effort required to assess policies is made easy when all you have to know is which party is proposing the policy. I just never thought so many people “thought” this way.

And we’re back to my initial question, “how can I still be this naïve?”

I don’t have an answer to that, but I can explain why I consider myself naive. After – what a decade? – of the left excusing countless abuses by the Democrats (ex. forgiving student debt, ignoring/promoting illegal immigration, etc.) I had thought that the Republicans would move the country back to some semblance of normality. If not the center, then at least do away with abuses of power.

Why did I think this would happen? Naivety is the only answer I can come up with.

We’ve gone from this:

To this:

The inability of progressives and Trumpists to think for themselves has put me in an interesting – and disheartening - situation. I spent much of last year arguing that Trump was a better option than Harris, resulting in endless accusations that I was MAGA (or Maple MAGA if the accuser is Canadian). This year when I criticize Trump’s tariff plan - policy? mood swings? whatever you want to call it – I am accused of being a liberal (or a “Liberal” if the accuser is Canadian). It strikes me that it must be nice to be way over on the left or way over on the right. How simple life must be to be free of the need to think for yourself, to simply take your marching orders from your glorious leader.

Too many people seem to fall into one of these two camps. A perfect example is the following:

• Progressives wish to increase corporate taxes and claim "taxing corporate profits doesn't impact consumers." They’re wrong.

• Trumpists support the return of the days of high tariffs and claim “tariffs are a tax on corporate profits, not consumers.” They’re also wrong.

There is no thinking going on in either of these cases. They’re perfect examples of “my side says X so I support it.” The two claims are evidence of an inability to understand market economics. That or someone is lying to advance an agenda. Simple rule of thumb, if you must lie to convince people your policy is good, you’re wrong.

I can explain it; I just won’t excuse it.

People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
-- Helen Keller

There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

There’s another reason for unquestioning support of the damage both sides do; jealousy. There have always been calls on the left to “tax the rich” and claims that “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” It’s a desire to redistribute wealth based on a mistaken belief that the government can solve the world’s problems. Lately though, I’ve been seeing comments from the right which mirror the left’s position but in a darker way. These are the “burn it all down” arguments. There is no constructive, if misguided, goal, it is simply a desire to see others suffer.

I always welcome comments but I’m going to make an exception this time. If you’re pro-tariffs and want to argue math or economics, I’m all ears. Show me the data or the economic theory and we can have a discussion. However, if you’re response contains something along the lines of “what you don’t understand is that what Trump is doing is…” save your breath. You can’t read his mind, you’re just guessing. Or worse, your position is based on faith in Trump, and I allot exactly zero faith to politicians. I’ll reserve my faith for God. I suggest you do the same.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.