Rethinking Weekly Dinner Rotations

Philip Wolf, editor for PQB News and the Vancouver Island Free Daily, is reflecting on why certain affordable and delicious dishes rarely make it onto the regular family menu.

After finishing two cobs of corn during a recent dinner, Wolf noted that while corn on the cob is easy to prepare, budget-friendly, and accessible throughout the year, his family only consumes it a few times annually. Canned corn appears frequently, yet fresh cobs remain an infrequent treat alongside other items like Brussels sprouts and stuffing, which often stay reserved for holiday meals like Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Holiday Foods and Seasonal Treats

Wolf observed a similar pattern with seasonal desserts and holiday staples. Items such as Nanaimo bars, Halloween chocolates, and his mother’s peach upside-down pudding cake—baked by his son each Christmas—are limited due to their rich nature. However, nutritious options like Brussels sprouts and corn on the cob could easily appear more often without waiting for special occasions.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Benjamin Franklin supposedly walked out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and was asked what kind of government the founders had created.

His answer has echoed across more than two centuries:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Maybe Franklin wasn’t speaking to 2026.

But he might as well have been.

Because America is approaching a moment when voters will be asked a question much bigger than whether they like Donald Trump, dislike Donald Trump, support Republicans or prefer Democrats.

The real question is whether the institutions of the American republic still matter.

On November 3, 2026, Americans vote in the midterm elections. Every seat in the House of Representatives will be contested, along with roughly one-third of the Senate.

Normally, midterms are about taxes, inflation, health care, immigration and whether voters are satisfied with the president.

This time feels different.

This time the issue is power.

Specifically: How much power should any American president have?

And perhaps more importantly: Who is willing to stop him when he goes too far?

The Problem Isn’t Just Trump

Donald Trump remains the most polarizing political figure in modern American history.

His supporters see a president willing to challenge institutions they believe have become arrogant, unaccountable and hopelessly disconnected from ordinary Americans.

His critics see something much darker: a president steadily testing the limits of executive authority while demanding loyalty from institutions that were designed to remain independent of him.

You don’t need to embrace every accusation levelled against Trump to recognize the danger.

Presidents are supposed to have opposition.

Congress is supposed to challenge the executive.

Courts are supposed to interpret the Constitution independently.

The Justice Department is supposed to administer justice rather than political revenge.

The media is supposed to make powerful people uncomfortable.

Those aren’t inconveniences.

They’re the system.

And when those institutions stop behaving independently, it shouldn’t matter whether the president’s name is Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush or anyone else.

Conservatives, of all people, should understand that.

Limited government cannot mean limited government only when the other party controls it.

Congress Has Forgotten Its Job

Perhaps the most troubling development in Washington is not Trump’s behaviour.

It is Congress’s willingness to surrender its own authority.

America’s founders didn’t create Congress to serve as the president’s fan club.

They created three competing branches of government precisely because they didn’t trust concentrated power.

Ambition was supposed to counter ambition.

Congress was supposed to fight for its authority.

Instead, modern American politics increasingly rewards legislators for becoming extensions of their political tribe.

When their party occupies the White House, congressional leaders defend behaviour they would have condemned had the other side done exactly the same thing.

Democrats have done it.

Republicans have done it.

And the result is an executive branch that gets stronger almost regardless of who wins elections.

That should worry everyone.

Because eventually the president you despise inherits every power you were willing to give the president you loved.

Conservatives Should Be Especially Concerned

There is an uncomfortable irony here.

For decades, conservatives argued for smaller government, constitutional limits, individual liberty and skepticism toward centralized authority.

Those ideas were right then.

They’re right now.

Yet parts of the American right increasingly seem willing to tolerate enormous executive authority so long as the person wielding it is Donald Trump.

That’s not conservatism.

That’s personality politics.

A conservative shouldn’t want a Republican king any more than a Democratic one.

The entire point of constitutional government is that good institutions protect citizens from bad leaders—and protect the country from the excesses of popular ones.

If your theory of government depends entirely upon trusting the character of the person sitting behind the Resolute Desk, you no longer have limited government.

You have faith.

America’s Institutions Are Being Tested

There is another problem developing alongside political power: economic power.

America’s technology giants have become some of the most influential institutions ever created.

They control communications platforms, cloud infrastructure, artificial intelligence, advertising networks and increasingly large portions of the information Americans consume.

That concentration deserves scrutiny regardless of whether those executives are friendly with Democrats or Republicans.

The danger isn’t simply billionaires becoming involved in politics.

Billionaires have always been involved in politics.

The danger comes when political power, technological power, financial power and media power become increasingly intertwined.

A functioning republic depends upon competing centres of authority.

When everybody with something to lose decides it is easier to accommodate political power than challenge it, accountability disappears remarkably quickly.

Courage becomes expensive.

Silence becomes profitable.

That isn’t healthy for democracy.

This Is What the Midterms Are Really About

The 2026 midterms therefore aren’t simply a referendum on Donald Trump.

They’re a referendum on checks and balances.

Americans will decide whether Congress should continue marching alongside the White House or whether Washington needs more institutional friction.

And friction isn’t necessarily dysfunction.

Sometimes friction is exactly what constitutional government requires.

Presidents hate congressional investigations.

Administrations hate hostile committees.

Political parties hate divided government.

Good.

They are supposed to.

The American system was intentionally designed to make sweeping concentrations of power difficult.

Government wasn’t supposed to operate like a corporation with a chief executive issuing orders to compliant subordinates.

It was supposed to be messy.

Slow.

Argumentative.

Frustrating.

That’s a feature, not a bug.

America Doesn’t Need Another King

There is a tendency in modern politics to treat every election as an existential event.

Lose this election and democracy ends.

Lose that election and America disappears.

Most of the time, that’s nonsense.

America has survived terrible presidents, mediocre presidents, corrupt politicians, wars, depressions, scandals and periods of astonishing political stupidity.

It will probably survive Donald Trump too.

But survival isn’t the standard.

The question is what kind of country emerges afterward.

Because republics rarely disappear overnight.

Institutions erode gradually.

Norms become optional.

Exceptional measures become routine.

Political opponents become enemies.

Executive authority expands.

Legislatures become spectators.

And eventually people discover that powers they tolerated when their side was winning have become terrifying when the other side takes control.

That is why Franklin’s warning still matters.

Keeping the Republic Is the Voters’ Job

The founders didn’t promise America permanent liberty.

They built machinery that could preserve it.

But the machinery only works if citizens demand that it work.

That means insisting presidents obey constitutional limits even when you voted for them.

It means expecting Congress to act like an independent branch of government.

It means defending courts when they issue decisions you dislike.

It means tolerating journalism that makes your side uncomfortable.

It means accepting that political opponents are still citizens.

And above all, it means remembering that America is bigger than whoever happens to occupy the White House.

Donald Trump isn’t America.

Neither is the Republican Party.

Neither is the Democratic Party.

America is the Constitution.

The institutions.

The separation of powers.

The rule of law.

And the stubborn idea that nobody—not a billionaire, not a judge, not a president—is supposed to be above them.

Franklin said America had been given a republic if it could keep it.

Nearly 240 years later, Americans are still answering him.

On November 3, they get another chance.

Footnote: Chad Dashly has a clear thesis: the issue isn’t whether you love or hate Trump; it’s whether you still believe in limited government when your own side controls it.

Premier Addresses Election Speculation and Opposition Turnover

Premier David Eby declined to offer a definitive answer when asked if British Columbians could be headed to the polls early, following a wave of departures from the B.C. Conservative caucus. Speaking at a press conference in Burnaby on Tuesday, Sept. 1, Eby was asked directly for a yes-or-no commitment on calling a snap election. Instead of giving a clear stance, he stated that his administration is preparing for the upcoming fall legislative session and noted that the opposition party is experiencing substantial internal turmoil.

Eby emphasized that the government’s primary focus remains on serving the public. Meanwhile, the B.C. Conservative caucus has seen its numbers fall significantly. After electing 44 MLAs in 2024, the party has lost 14 members, including seven who departed in August citing issues regarding newly appointed Leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay.

Abbotsford-Mission Byelection Scheduled for Sept. 26

Among those who left the Conservative fold is former Abbotsford-Mission MLA Reann Gasper, who stepped down from her seat on Aug. 22 to clear a path for Findlay to run. Eby officially called the byelection for that riding on Aug. 29, setting election day for Saturday, Sept. 26. Addressing the race on Tuesday, Eby criticized Gasper’s tenure, stating she bluntly and completely failed her constituents during her time in office. He added that he moved quickly to schedule the vote because local residents deserve dedicated representation.

The race in Abbotsford-Mission will feature NDP candidate Pam Alexis running against Findlay. Alexis previously represented the area and served as the minister of agriculture and food, in addition to being a former mayor of Mission. Although Gasper won the seat over Alexis in the 2024 general election following a redrawing of riding boundaries, Alexis is returning to contest the seat for the governing party.