Well finally someone who gets it. Nicely written and well phrased without becoming too Professorial. You also seem to have kept a clear eye on this and congratulations, I couldn't tell if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian. THAT is good writing. (Others might take note.) And I believe your analysis, as someone who does a lot of business with and travels extensively across the US at all political levels, is very shrewd and accurate. The folks we see speaking to the US are just the tip of the spear. Others, the future contacts, are watching how we act and interact. So do you want to work with them or suffer under them? We have a long, long border and it is not going anywhere. It has benefitted both countries for a century to have that "undefended" and to work together. Look at the auto production, cattle raising, and pipeline systems of the many examples; they are intertwined and they work. Hopefully the new government will realize that and do its best to repair our relationship with the US as a whole and the administration specifically. If not, as you accurately projected, it's going to be a hard road.
I was thinking that one issue that could work in our favour in terms of urgency and taking action. To defuse some of the illegal goings on between borders that would really shake things up that I have not seen discussed. For the FN's that span our borders and allegedly and widely are believed to be clear roads for illegal gun-running, tobacco, drugs and people trafficking going both ways, why not talk about allowing the FN people of those places to decide which country they want to be a part of and change the borders accordingly. That way, it would simplify the greater nation's laws and their imposition.
Yes you put your finger on it. The ultimate goal should be to dump the abominable Indian act and have the FNs be real nations with their own border enforcement and justice system etc and stop being the responsibility of the Canadian Nation. The US tribes have way more autonomy (and own their mineral rights than the Canadian ones and this would be a good a starting point in Canada.
633 sovereign nations dotted all over Canada with border controls where Canadian highways and railways cross through them? Criminals causing trouble in a white town not able to be arrested by provincial police and Mounties because they have escaped into foreign countries where our police have no jurisdiction to enter? Very few -- probably none -- of these sovereign nations would have the state capacity to be independent countries. Many have only a few dozen people and their band councils function like the reeve of a small municipal township, but without the ability to tax the inhabitants to pay for any municipal services. They are all totally dependent on the Canadian taxpayer for the necessities of life and would remain so. Only a few have any resource wealth that investors would be interested in exploiting. Be careful what you wish for. Surely it isn't that. If you are being sarcastic, I apologize for missing it.
American Indian Reservations are autonomously sovereign only with respect to the State they happen to be situated in. They are fully under the sovereign control of the U.S. Federal Government, which owns their land in trust in somewhat the same way the Canadian Crown owns Indian Reserves. In neither country can the Natives put up their land as collateral for loans, because it's not theirs. That was the reason for the Reserve/Reservation system, so the tribes couldn't lose their land in bankruptcy.
American Indian "Nations" (Reservations) are in no way sovereign nations independent of the United States. They are all U.S. citizens. U.S. law applies fully on Indian Reservations but State laws against gambling, say, do not, which is why the Reservations all have casinos. (I don't who enforces the criminal law on a U.S. Indian Reservation because that is normally a State responsibility. As on Canadian Reserves, criminal justice is a big deal. Many customers! But in Canada, aboriginal criminals are arrested by local police and tried in Provincial Courts just like everyone else.)
As you may know, Pierre Trudeau tried to abolish the antiquated, racist, paternalistic Indian Act back in 1969 and encourage the aboriginals to stand on their own feet and assimilate into the Canadian economy, even if they didn't want to intermarry with us. But there was such a storm of protest from the 633 chiefs who would lose the best jobs they would ever have that the idea died and has been yet another "third rail" of Canadian politics ever since.
“As you may know, Pierre Trudeau tried to abolish the antiquated, racist, paternalistic Indian Act back in 1969 and encourage the aboriginals to stand on their own feet and assimilate into the Canadian economy, even if they didn't want to intermarry with us. But there was such a storm of protest from the 633 chiefs who would lose the best jobs they would ever have that the idea died and has been yet another "third rail" of Canadian politics ever since.”
IIRC the poem relates to the unwisdom of paying "Danegeld", or what is nowadays called blackmail and protection money. The most famous lines are "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane." Blackmail never ends, doesn’t it?
John, in Canada our aboriginal reserves own the mineral rights. That is quite clear.
Oh, and what is also clear is that the feds negotiate with resource companies "on behalf of the natives." Hmmm ... We all need to think about that one!
(Leslie here. Substack gets Susan and me mixed up even though we use separate e-mail addresses.)
I don't think it's universally true that the Reserves "own" the mineral rights. You and I usually don't own any resources under our private land. The province does. The Reserves are Crown Land and the minerals would be owned by the Crown unless there was some specific provision in a treaty otherwise that conferred mineral rights to the band that occupies the Reserve. (Crown land is owned by the provincial Crowns except for specifically federal Crown land like military bases, national parks,... and Indian Reserves.) The band doesn't own the land and therefore can't own the resources under it....unless it has bought the land from the Crown and bought the mineral rights along with it, as some wealthy bands have.
What's true is that the Supreme Court has identified a duty for resource companies to consult with bands affected by a resource project to extract those minerals (including pipelines to transport the resource out to markets.) This duty to consult extends to "traditional lands" outside the boundaries of the present-day Reserve. The regulator is supposed to satisfy itself that "consultation" has been adequate before it approves the project. (This consultation process is now so exacting and onerous that in practice no projects will ever be approved unless Cabinet intervenes. This is the "No More Pipelines Act", the infamous C-69.)
In British Columbia the situation is even more complicated because most of the land there was never ceded to the British Crown before BC joined Confederation (owing to multiple overlapping claims), dumping the problem into Canada's lap. So while the BC Crown asserts ownership of Crown Land in the province it is not clear that it actually does own it. The 2014 Canadian Supreme Court ruling in Tsilhiqot'in is a landmark case that established aboriginal collective fee simple title for the first time outside a Crown Indian Reserve, which ups the consultation burden considerably to one of seeking consent.
And of course if a band is determined to oppose a resource project, even if all the other bands affected have enthusiastically endorsed it and Cabinet has approved it, it becomes very difficult and very expensive to proceed against people willing to threaten violence, which is why pipelines in Canada will never make money. Not for the investors, anyway.
Leslie (or Susan, if you prefer!) I think that you are both correct and incorrect about resource ownership. Now, having said that I am thinking about this in terms of here in Alberta.
Yes, the "land" (i.e. subsurface rights) is federal Crown land but, as I understand matters, that is Crown land held in trust for the benefit of the band; aboriginal affairs are a federal matter as you know and that is why my comments below do not apply to the bands.
As to why you and I don't own the resources under our land but bands do, some history. In some parts of the prairies, farmers purchased their land from the Crown way, way, way back when. Say, oh, 1910, and their children, grandchildren, etc. still own that land. Or, Bob and Betty Settler sold the land to Bill and Bernice Farmer, who sold to, who sold to, etc. right up until today. I cannot tell you when the law changed (I will speculate in a moment) but when this original land sale was made it INCLUDED mineral rights, not as an unusual matter but as a standard matter and in most cases any subsequent transfer also included the mineral rights. But not all: some farmer transferred only surface rights and retained mineral rights. Therefore, today, the particular farmer (or whomever) owns the mineral rights and can make a deal with the resource company (some of those farmers are pretty shrewd!).
There weren't a lot of people around back then so there is not at all a lot of freehold "land" (the name for when individuals actually own the mineral rights) and most of the resource rights are owned by the Crown.
As to the when this occurred, I speculate that it was 1930 when the feds transferred the subsurface right to the province. That was not at all a gift from the feds and was only because when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the feds deliberately chose to retain mineral rights as a federal matter whereas those mineral rights were provincial in other provinces. We fought the demon feds in court and feds kept appealing. Finally, the Privy Council in England ruled in our favor and the mineral rights were transferred in 1930.
That’s a very good point, Ken, and I thank you. I knew mineral rights to landowners varied from province to province but I didn’t know by how much. I was thinking of Ontario where prospecting on private and provincial Crown land has been going on for a long time.
I agree it might take a long time. But does Canada want to continue forever with the current situation of permanent welfare and the “gimme” high suicide victimhood culture that currently exists. IfTrudeau senior had applied the same energy to promoting his ideas on First Nations that he did to destroying Canada’s Anglo free enterprise culture, Canada would be far better off today at least economically. Why Canadian politicians insist on carrying out Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man's burden” never ceases to amaze me.
There is no doubt that very few of the current nations would survive as such if the taxpayer stopped supporting them. To me a “nation” without the right to decide who it admits and prevent others from entering its territory by force if necessary is not a nation but an administrative convenience. And a person without property rights and titles thereto that can be bought and sold and the right to decide and enforce who enters his land is basically a slave. I personally find this immoral but maybe I’m old fashioned and in the minority.
In the case of a Reserve that straddles the Canada-US border, I suspect each country would prefer that the entire Reserve be located in the *other* country, no matter what the FNs themselves thought about it. Phil Ochs wrote a song, “Mississippi why can’t you find another country to be part of.?”. Kinda like that.
Yes but that assumes that Canada and Canadians have the will and ability to adapt to a new national reality and agreed upon set of fundamentals. Personal responsibility, a solid work ethic and respect for family and traditional values will have to be the hallmark of this new, robust, risk taking and hard working Canada that focusses on growth and wealth creation. Do we have the character and culture to make this the new reality?
I believe strongly that the majority of Canadians have the will and ability to succeed. But it has to come from within themselves as individuals. If you look to government for leadership you are doomed. All it does is redistribute wealth and produces nothing.
For historical background the Soviet Union lasted 69 years (1922 to 1991) Canada’s welfare statehood (no pun intended) started in 1945 with the Family Allowance act, and CPP started in 1966. It’s been 8o years. I can’t believe that Canadians are not as smart as Russians.
To whatever extent this article is accurate in its assessment and predictions (and I think it's pretty accurate), it is clear that Canada has been left behind and will be left further behind unless and until we dispense with our hopelessly inept and irresponsible government. A Liberal win in our next election (whenever that may turn out to be) may well be the final nail in our coffin.
Or better. What about china’s stated ambition to control the world. Does that fit no where in this philosophy? I think it does and personally I prefer to be a vassal state of the US that loves its freedom than China which does not.
You are so right. Everyone seems to be super concentrated on the US. China is really the sleeping dragon waiting for the US and Russia to implode. China, despite the US protestations, has the most modern armed forces in the world, especially it's Navy whose goal it is to control all international waterways, including the Artic Bearing Sea and the Bering Strait. Canada is not even considered a player in the North. China doesn't plan is 4 year election parameters but in 50 year segments. Patience and Preparation is their plan. We have ignored this to our peril.
So true. Everyone who is saying ‘bad USA’ seems to miss the point that China is busy moving on Canada. And has been extremely active (and successful) these past 10 yrs. I’d easily throw my lot in with the Americans rather than the creepy Chinese Communist Party.
When I hear ppl say that Canada is not for sale, I beg to differ. It has been yielding to & inviting Chinese interference, influence and oh so much Beijing money that it boggles the mind that most Cdns are so blithely unaware of it.
And how msm hasn’t acknowledged Sam Cooper’s outstanding & brilliant investigative journalism is equally shocking. Therefore, the public remains uneducated because it’s not like the Liberal government would blow the whistle on themselves. So, there you have it, let’s boo the American sports teams, helplessly complain about DJT & Musk & ignore that Beijing is front & center in the PMO, the cabinet & the Liberal-appointed senate.
This is the one of the main reasons why I don't listen to mainstream media and have no trust in the powers that be. Lets not forget what the Ayatollah said also.
It seems to me that there is a tension between an essentially isolationist “me first” (and pay me back!) “Fortress America” impulse on the one hand, and assuring that the US remains the sole economic world hegemon - indeed, the provider of the world’s reserve currency - on the other.
Because dominating the Asia-Pacific is difficult, and it is not obvious to me that letting Russia run free in Europe is compatible with “containing the Chinese rival”.
I also wonder what South Korea and Japan make of it all - not to mention the ASEAN nations and Australia, which has now been told that any treaty it has with the US is worthless. [See the comments of former PM Malcolm Turnbull on the Australian National Broadcaster’].
Especially when (for example) it is Japanese and Korean car manufacturers that have savaged the American competition; and it is Taiwan that is vital because of its unique chips manufacturing capacity.
For if a poor country like North Korea can acquire its own nuclear weapons (or similar weapons of mass destruction), virtually anyone can.
Indeed, readers of a certain age will remember that Charles De Gaulle developed France’s independent nuclear deterrent because he doubted that the US would come to Europe’s defense, “in a crunch” - as may now have been made clear.
So I wonder if it means that proliferation is on the horizon – which of course poses its own risk.
Richard, this is a great comment. I give a monthly off-the-record chat to a Toronto audience and this is shockingly close to my latest remarks. Both in terms of nuclear proliferation being likely and also the tension -- probably self-defeating in the end -- between America as isolationist and America as global economic hegemon.
My suspicion is that there are lucrative but unmonitored financial benefits in Russia for the Trump organization and Trump's family, which over-ride any concerns about the US national interest. Just like the Russian oligarchs had (and may still have) the opportunity for lucrative investments in the UK, despite the origin of their riches and their loyalties. Money has no nationality. Especially if it is in American dollars.
Very good points. Missing I believe is the biggest problem. We need to have a functional Parliament. We are today and will be tomorrow lost going against Trump because we have no leadership going up against what is a clear, defined and American centric view of what the world should be. We will have on March 9 a new Prime Minister who as a first step will investigate striking a deal with the New Democrats, who have cratered in the polls and need time to rebuild, to either continue on with their support or declare an economic Emergency and keep Parliament prorogued to present a Team Canada approach to Trump. The irony will be traumatic. We will be decrying the American Nazi while being ruled by an unelected leader who either continued on with an arrangement the populace does not want or shut down Parliament. He or she will be supported by 2 parties, one third of whom have already announced they are quitting. The people who are quitting will be in charge of the most critical decisions in our country's future in my 7 decades. Maybe the new Prime Minister will call an election instead. So sometime around the beginning or middle of May we'll be in a position to sit down and have a discussion with Mister Trump. God knows, given the past month, that the world will be radically different by that time. But we now need to buckle down and realize that the guy across the table from us knows all of this, smells our weakness, and is planning to take advantage of it.
Well argued. However, I see the analysis as a cautionary tale - a scenario - and not a firm proposal: while the author may have accurately described the Trump administration's intentions they game those intentions out as if the long-term execution will be flawless and inevitable. The current administration has strength and energy but lacks competence. And like empowered bullies more generally, hasn't factored in the extent to which and ways in which other actors (even relatively weaker ones) have agency - some American citizens and other nation-states will react in ways that were not sufficiently factored into their strategy. That will complicate matters. I just do not think that we are quite yet in a situation where it's 'America intends to do X, therefore we must do Y'. Intention and outcome are different things. But we certainly could end up there. My point is: I understand that many people are both shocked and demoralized right now but that is passing and resolve is firming up and I don't discount the possibility that 'New Republicanism' is a movement that can be defeated - or for those whose geopolitical tastes run Realist, significantly blunted - through forces both outside the US and within. I am not saying it will, but that it can. One way to usher in New Republicanism is to react as it it were inevitable (i.e., a purely defensive mindset). It's a game. A game has moves. To win, we need to play.
Good article - the information, like this, flooding Cloud Cuckoo Land on the Rideau surely should be waking up the living dead. We shall see.
One point to add to the discussion. America going its own way with a firm belief that it represents the New Jerusalem is as old as America. The anomaly was, as noted, post-WWII. So, we're reverting to more normal America as it navigates the Hobbesian world that is jousting place for nation states. However, the Marshall Plan was designed to pull Europe out of the mess left by WWII to make the world safe for American business and its geopolitical advantage. Everyone went along largely because there was little choice and it worked more or less to the benefit of all. It still does but as America reverts to its norm, things will revert to all sorting out what their interests are and jostling for advantage that will revert to that Hobbesian world as noted. A new stasis will evolve and life will go on. It will be less comfortable and participants in that world need to retain a much sharper focus as to what's going on than has been the practice when America assumed the role of guardian of the liberal world order. Minnows, such as Canada, will find this a much less comfortable place in which to swim but swim we must. And, we will. We need to be clear eyed and watch our assumptions. No one cares about Canada except Canadians. That needs to be the watchword.
I completely agree with this analysis. Look at the ages of the New Republicans. They will be around for a while. They do not just have different policy ideas; they are angry. And I mean angry. And I don't understand why they are so angry. But, Trump holds the constellation of actors around him together. When he is gone, they will remain but most are a lot less popular and they are competitive. We'll see if that constellation holds together. But, that is too close to suggesting that hope is a course of action. It would be a huge mistake to think that this will go away.
They’re angry because they’ve been personally attacked by legacy media and university institutions pushing DEI that disadvantages white men. It was always inevitable that there would be a big swing back against DEI. Trump caught those voters and as long as they feel their way of life is threatened they’ll stay angry. But many will calm down soon. All rising tides eventually fall and I think this was a rising tide lifted by the last US administration and some of Trumps worst policy decisions will quickly reverse some of the strongest and most angry tides. People can’t stay angry forever.
They're angry because they believe the lies. America had a completely manageable debt until Reagan. Now, the US "Goebbels" networks have told them who to hate and having a pathetic education system, and complete indifference to fact-checking, they've fallen in line with those who will take everything they have.
Yepp. Russia and China has each separately made it clear that each wants to eat the World. China made its intentions abundantly clear, Russia has been less clear but the intent is there. USA does not wish to be eaten, so ......
Now that we've won the hockey tournament...perhaps we're amenable to considering a useful idea...the implementation of near-union, north/south relations with the US. The Indians found it to be useful, could we? Could we ditch (or at least back-burner) our current US mouth-foaming to discuss the conditions under which we recognize that it's shorter to ship from Calgary to Houston than it is Halifax, Nova Scotia?
Right. The Fathers of Confederation ignored that our trade routes were North/South and not East/West. Their loyalties were to the British and felt that a Confederation running East/West would guarantee a British Stronghold against the rebels to the South and the French threat.
This is an awesome précis of the situation at hand. Canadians until lately had absolutely no idea of the emotional power of “buy American” and supporting your own country. Thank God (please don’t suspend me for using the uncanadian G word) Canadians are finally starting to appreciate what it means. It means your fellow countrymen appreciate that you are creating jobs for them and also that you take pride in producing a quality product to avoid embarrassing yourself even if it costs more. That is why the mutual quasi-BDSM spanking exercises of reciprocal tariff wars a la Boss Ford will lead nowhere since people at least in the US will see the extra costs of tariffs as a worthwhile cost to keep domestic jobs. - and as a side benefit, to help reduce income taxes ( in the US at least).
So I hope that the new found pride in being Canadian extends to working harder to produce quality products and not just putting a maple leaf on cheap Chinese crap a la Canadian Tire. The benefits of taking pride in your work are awesome!
"it’s only going to get worse from here"...or not. I find the extremism of this article offputting because the extreme suggests that non-America won't regroup, react and respond. It's only taken Canada 3 weeks to discover it actually has a self-consciousness (well buried under its "post national" self-image).
In my view, the rest of the world--particularly Canada--has indeed taken a free ride on the US. The evidence is everywhere including the fact that we've tolerated a silly boy who has embarrassed us on the world stage for 10 years.
The extreme notion described here--total power vs total weakness--ought first to consider the lessons of priority, speed, determination and impact now being displayed by America--for the public's benefit. The absence of that learning has indeed "poisoned" international governance for decades. The evidence is no more visible than the fact that the globally richest 10% of the world's population earn more than half the world's income.
I believe Tom that the ills of Canada run deeper than "we've tolerated a silly boy who has embarrassed us on the world stage for 10 years." as much as I agree with that sentiment. He was democratically elected for 3 terms FFS, we did that...not me, but us as a whole. Why did we buy into the DEI stuff so readily and now so difficult to get rid of? It seemed a thing that bled into our culture from the US but nevertheless we bought into it. Why? We have so little to be ashamed of, despite doing things badly in hindsight...we don't see to be able to course correct. In the last couple of days get this as an example....Eby and the Health experts finally agreed that the safe supply policy is flawed and moved to correct at least one of the flaws. The government has now mandated that substance abusers take their safe supply at the source. They now have to take the pills they get from the pharmacist at the pharmacy and not wander out to sell them to others as has been uncovered. The NDP despite years of denying that there was evidence of 'diversion' finally admitted not too long ago that it was happening. They finally released a study, apparently in error. Today there are 2 stories from 'doctors' opining that this is a mistake and would cause 'harm'. Where has the common sense that I remember Canada having?
CF...complete agreement. The "silly boy" comment was the most disparaging thing I could think of for our Prime Minister. He has brought Canada to its knees. Not a flattering image in this woke era.
I may be misinterpreting you but what Elon Musk is doing is not for the public's benefit. It's completely reckless -we all know there's too much bureaucracy but it needs to be trimmed carefully which is difficult. It's easy sending in a bunch of kids with sledgehammers. He did that at Twitter which cut the value of the company in half and turned it into a sewer. And it's for Musk's benefit - getting rid of Inspectors General doesn't help anyone and a lot of what Musk is doing is smothering investigations into his own obnoxious, if not illegal, business practices. You are definitely right that this will help the richest 0.1% of America
A couple of comments, J. I was talking about Trump rather than Musk. As I understand their relationship, Trump directs...Musk implements (probably with lots of interaction tho').
Re: sledgenammers vs "trimming carefully". J, this has failed so many times as to negate its practicality. More has been "trimmed" with the Trump's intent and Musk's digging in these past 3 weeks than in all of recorded history (altho' any history beyond about WWII is beyond my scope!).
Folks like Musk and Trump are destined to be "obnoxious". There are few nice people who really get things done. Hence the phrase "Lead me, follow me...or get the hell out of the road."
Watch the golden idols tumble, J. You will see delivered most of the promises Trump made. None of us will like the cost of implementation...but we'll all like the results. Trump will go down in history as one of the most influential people of the 21st century in bringing better lives to more people.
We all love the idea of a white knight coming to our rescue and I actually hope you are right. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what's happening. I think Musk and Trump are both insane and are in it for the money and power at the expense of democracy. I even doubt Trump knows what Musk is actually up to. Did you see any of the video of him in the oval office signing all the executive orders? It didn't inspire confidence. "0oh, that's a good one." Or, concerningly, "Does anyone know what that means?". Time will tell.
J. Can't argue with you...time will tell. However, I find contradiction in the notion that 2 of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world are "in it for the money and power".
But again, time will tell. In the meantime, I'm liking the jab in the arse its given Canada.
There's never enough for people like that. Could a junkie have too much heroin? I really think we need to start looking at extreme wealth as a mental health problem. You're right. Why would they want more? But they do. I'm sure most would love to be the first trillionaire.
I believe that when wealth exceeds needs, it becomes simply a measure of performance. It's a bit like your "heroin" in that "accomplishment" is unlimited.
I agree with the author about American expansionism, however the plan will fail. America cannot expand to Canada or Greenland or Panama without diplomacy and its traditional role as the worlds protectors, which they happily assumed after WW2 and which Trump is now abdicating in full. He needs to pick a lane, he cannot threaten and make demand in one breath and expect adherence to these demands without retaliation and countries looking to divorce themselves from the relationships. The end result will be USA, based on current behaviour, resuming its place PRE WW1 as the isolated country it was.
This is correct. America may want expansion but Americans are not (yet) willing to spill blood for such expansion, let alone pay for the costs associated with an occupation.
New Republicans are tired of sending Americans into foreign wars and are not going to support a military intervention unless they feel directly threatened.
That’s not a very sunny view of Canada’s economic value, to say that occupying Canada would be a net cost to the United States. What are we, East Germany? We’re not all Nunavut. We have a few productive regions and sectors that could with the right prodding be as wealthy as Mississippi and Alabama. Think big!
I guess, maybe ? I am still a bit reluctant to hang upon and grand coherent ideological narratives about Trump. He is all id and ego, with zero super ego. Those around him just adjust to what he wants at the moment. Rubio is a great example. To hear him recite like a hostage in a ransom video the bit about all the great opportunity with Russia "... And remember if Donald Trump had been president, there would have been no war" blah blah blah"... You are saying this guy had / has a coherent and consistent ideology ?
I totally agree about looking past Trump but I think there is a bit too much inkblot / rorschach reading of what America is thinking as opposed to what the current King EOs into existence. Pundits auguring directions/ideologies/vibe shifts remind me a little too much of that scene from Life of Brian where the mob screams in certainty what Brian's lost shoe means. Like the article says the Libertarians see him as this "small government" guy... The "Fortress America" people see him as their isolationist guy. Even the theocrats think he is King Solomon FFS where as he really is this blathering bull in a china shop Chance The Gardner. Whatever the motivations, reasoned or randomized, 1000% agree, we have to act to deal with these new realities of an inconstant and angry to the world America. I thought Harper's tone and direction in yesterday's op ed really struck a good direction. Hopefully as a country we can rise to the challenge to implement the spirit of that.
The one word that leaps out with regard to Canada is "urgency"
We are not there yet by a country mile, and that is dismal.
Urgency and Canada are not compatible. Maybe in the past, but now, no.
Watch the liberal leaders debate and tell me where the urgency is.
Well finally someone who gets it. Nicely written and well phrased without becoming too Professorial. You also seem to have kept a clear eye on this and congratulations, I couldn't tell if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian. THAT is good writing. (Others might take note.) And I believe your analysis, as someone who does a lot of business with and travels extensively across the US at all political levels, is very shrewd and accurate. The folks we see speaking to the US are just the tip of the spear. Others, the future contacts, are watching how we act and interact. So do you want to work with them or suffer under them? We have a long, long border and it is not going anywhere. It has benefitted both countries for a century to have that "undefended" and to work together. Look at the auto production, cattle raising, and pipeline systems of the many examples; they are intertwined and they work. Hopefully the new government will realize that and do its best to repair our relationship with the US as a whole and the administration specifically. If not, as you accurately projected, it's going to be a hard road.
I was thinking that one issue that could work in our favour in terms of urgency and taking action. To defuse some of the illegal goings on between borders that would really shake things up that I have not seen discussed. For the FN's that span our borders and allegedly and widely are believed to be clear roads for illegal gun-running, tobacco, drugs and people trafficking going both ways, why not talk about allowing the FN people of those places to decide which country they want to be a part of and change the borders accordingly. That way, it would simplify the greater nation's laws and their imposition.
Yes you put your finger on it. The ultimate goal should be to dump the abominable Indian act and have the FNs be real nations with their own border enforcement and justice system etc and stop being the responsibility of the Canadian Nation. The US tribes have way more autonomy (and own their mineral rights than the Canadian ones and this would be a good a starting point in Canada.
633 sovereign nations dotted all over Canada with border controls where Canadian highways and railways cross through them? Criminals causing trouble in a white town not able to be arrested by provincial police and Mounties because they have escaped into foreign countries where our police have no jurisdiction to enter? Very few -- probably none -- of these sovereign nations would have the state capacity to be independent countries. Many have only a few dozen people and their band councils function like the reeve of a small municipal township, but without the ability to tax the inhabitants to pay for any municipal services. They are all totally dependent on the Canadian taxpayer for the necessities of life and would remain so. Only a few have any resource wealth that investors would be interested in exploiting. Be careful what you wish for. Surely it isn't that. If you are being sarcastic, I apologize for missing it.
American Indian Reservations are autonomously sovereign only with respect to the State they happen to be situated in. They are fully under the sovereign control of the U.S. Federal Government, which owns their land in trust in somewhat the same way the Canadian Crown owns Indian Reserves. In neither country can the Natives put up their land as collateral for loans, because it's not theirs. That was the reason for the Reserve/Reservation system, so the tribes couldn't lose their land in bankruptcy.
American Indian "Nations" (Reservations) are in no way sovereign nations independent of the United States. They are all U.S. citizens. U.S. law applies fully on Indian Reservations but State laws against gambling, say, do not, which is why the Reservations all have casinos. (I don't who enforces the criminal law on a U.S. Indian Reservation because that is normally a State responsibility. As on Canadian Reserves, criminal justice is a big deal. Many customers! But in Canada, aboriginal criminals are arrested by local police and tried in Provincial Courts just like everyone else.)
As you may know, Pierre Trudeau tried to abolish the antiquated, racist, paternalistic Indian Act back in 1969 and encourage the aboriginals to stand on their own feet and assimilate into the Canadian economy, even if they didn't want to intermarry with us. But there was such a storm of protest from the 633 chiefs who would lose the best jobs they would ever have that the idea died and has been yet another "third rail" of Canadian politics ever since.
“As you may know, Pierre Trudeau tried to abolish the antiquated, racist, paternalistic Indian Act back in 1969 and encourage the aboriginals to stand on their own feet and assimilate into the Canadian economy, even if they didn't want to intermarry with us. But there was such a storm of protest from the 633 chiefs who would lose the best jobs they would ever have that the idea died and has been yet another "third rail" of Canadian politics ever since.”
Bullseye. 🎯
Since you refer to Kipling, I return the favour with Kipling's great poem about Dane-geld.
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_danegeld.htm
That's what Canadians have been doing: paying the Dane-geld.
IIRC the poem relates to the unwisdom of paying "Danegeld", or what is nowadays called blackmail and protection money. The most famous lines are "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane." Blackmail never ends, doesn’t it?
John, in Canada our aboriginal reserves own the mineral rights. That is quite clear.
Oh, and what is also clear is that the feds negotiate with resource companies "on behalf of the natives." Hmmm ... We all need to think about that one!
(Leslie here. Substack gets Susan and me mixed up even though we use separate e-mail addresses.)
I don't think it's universally true that the Reserves "own" the mineral rights. You and I usually don't own any resources under our private land. The province does. The Reserves are Crown Land and the minerals would be owned by the Crown unless there was some specific provision in a treaty otherwise that conferred mineral rights to the band that occupies the Reserve. (Crown land is owned by the provincial Crowns except for specifically federal Crown land like military bases, national parks,... and Indian Reserves.) The band doesn't own the land and therefore can't own the resources under it....unless it has bought the land from the Crown and bought the mineral rights along with it, as some wealthy bands have.
What's true is that the Supreme Court has identified a duty for resource companies to consult with bands affected by a resource project to extract those minerals (including pipelines to transport the resource out to markets.) This duty to consult extends to "traditional lands" outside the boundaries of the present-day Reserve. The regulator is supposed to satisfy itself that "consultation" has been adequate before it approves the project. (This consultation process is now so exacting and onerous that in practice no projects will ever be approved unless Cabinet intervenes. This is the "No More Pipelines Act", the infamous C-69.)
In British Columbia the situation is even more complicated because most of the land there was never ceded to the British Crown before BC joined Confederation (owing to multiple overlapping claims), dumping the problem into Canada's lap. So while the BC Crown asserts ownership of Crown Land in the province it is not clear that it actually does own it. The 2014 Canadian Supreme Court ruling in Tsilhiqot'in is a landmark case that established aboriginal collective fee simple title for the first time outside a Crown Indian Reserve, which ups the consultation burden considerably to one of seeking consent.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/real-game-changer-supreme-court-of-canada-tsilhqotin-decision.pdf
And of course if a band is determined to oppose a resource project, even if all the other bands affected have enthusiastically endorsed it and Cabinet has approved it, it becomes very difficult and very expensive to proceed against people willing to threaten violence, which is why pipelines in Canada will never make money. Not for the investors, anyway.
Leslie (or Susan, if you prefer!) I think that you are both correct and incorrect about resource ownership. Now, having said that I am thinking about this in terms of here in Alberta.
Yes, the "land" (i.e. subsurface rights) is federal Crown land but, as I understand matters, that is Crown land held in trust for the benefit of the band; aboriginal affairs are a federal matter as you know and that is why my comments below do not apply to the bands.
As to why you and I don't own the resources under our land but bands do, some history. In some parts of the prairies, farmers purchased their land from the Crown way, way, way back when. Say, oh, 1910, and their children, grandchildren, etc. still own that land. Or, Bob and Betty Settler sold the land to Bill and Bernice Farmer, who sold to, who sold to, etc. right up until today. I cannot tell you when the law changed (I will speculate in a moment) but when this original land sale was made it INCLUDED mineral rights, not as an unusual matter but as a standard matter and in most cases any subsequent transfer also included the mineral rights. But not all: some farmer transferred only surface rights and retained mineral rights. Therefore, today, the particular farmer (or whomever) owns the mineral rights and can make a deal with the resource company (some of those farmers are pretty shrewd!).
There weren't a lot of people around back then so there is not at all a lot of freehold "land" (the name for when individuals actually own the mineral rights) and most of the resource rights are owned by the Crown.
As to the when this occurred, I speculate that it was 1930 when the feds transferred the subsurface right to the province. That was not at all a gift from the feds and was only because when Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the feds deliberately chose to retain mineral rights as a federal matter whereas those mineral rights were provincial in other provinces. We fought the demon feds in court and feds kept appealing. Finally, the Privy Council in England ruled in our favor and the mineral rights were transferred in 1930.
That’s a very good point, Ken, and I thank you. I knew mineral rights to landowners varied from province to province but I didn’t know by how much. I was thinking of Ontario where prospecting on private and provincial Crown land has been going on for a long time.
I may have over simplified. I recall seeing an analysis and it may have applied only to oil under certain conditions. Thanks for the catch.
Yes dump the abominable Indian act. The rest is, ahem, questionable in Canadian context.
I’m try to be optimistic. That’s the American in me. I sometimes see things the way they should/could be rather than the way they are 😆
I agree it might take a long time. But does Canada want to continue forever with the current situation of permanent welfare and the “gimme” high suicide victimhood culture that currently exists. IfTrudeau senior had applied the same energy to promoting his ideas on First Nations that he did to destroying Canada’s Anglo free enterprise culture, Canada would be far better off today at least economically. Why Canadian politicians insist on carrying out Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man's burden” never ceases to amaze me.
There is no doubt that very few of the current nations would survive as such if the taxpayer stopped supporting them. To me a “nation” without the right to decide who it admits and prevent others from entering its territory by force if necessary is not a nation but an administrative convenience. And a person without property rights and titles thereto that can be bought and sold and the right to decide and enforce who enters his land is basically a slave. I personally find this immoral but maybe I’m old fashioned and in the minority.
In the case of a Reserve that straddles the Canada-US border, I suspect each country would prefer that the entire Reserve be located in the *other* country, no matter what the FNs themselves thought about it. Phil Ochs wrote a song, “Mississippi why can’t you find another country to be part of.?”. Kinda like that.
100 percent
Yes but that assumes that Canada and Canadians have the will and ability to adapt to a new national reality and agreed upon set of fundamentals. Personal responsibility, a solid work ethic and respect for family and traditional values will have to be the hallmark of this new, robust, risk taking and hard working Canada that focusses on growth and wealth creation. Do we have the character and culture to make this the new reality?
I believe strongly that the majority of Canadians have the will and ability to succeed. But it has to come from within themselves as individuals. If you look to government for leadership you are doomed. All it does is redistribute wealth and produces nothing.
For historical background the Soviet Union lasted 69 years (1922 to 1991) Canada’s welfare statehood (no pun intended) started in 1945 with the Family Allowance act, and CPP started in 1966. It’s been 8o years. I can’t believe that Canadians are not as smart as Russians.
To whatever extent this article is accurate in its assessment and predictions (and I think it's pretty accurate), it is clear that Canada has been left behind and will be left further behind unless and until we dispense with our hopelessly inept and irresponsible government. A Liberal win in our next election (whenever that may turn out to be) may well be the final nail in our coffin.
Or better. What about china’s stated ambition to control the world. Does that fit no where in this philosophy? I think it does and personally I prefer to be a vassal state of the US that loves its freedom than China which does not.
Yes. Lots and lots of people are missing this "minor" point.
You are so right. Everyone seems to be super concentrated on the US. China is really the sleeping dragon waiting for the US and Russia to implode. China, despite the US protestations, has the most modern armed forces in the world, especially it's Navy whose goal it is to control all international waterways, including the Artic Bearing Sea and the Bering Strait. Canada is not even considered a player in the North. China doesn't plan is 4 year election parameters but in 50 year segments. Patience and Preparation is their plan. We have ignored this to our peril.
So true. Everyone who is saying ‘bad USA’ seems to miss the point that China is busy moving on Canada. And has been extremely active (and successful) these past 10 yrs. I’d easily throw my lot in with the Americans rather than the creepy Chinese Communist Party.
When I hear ppl say that Canada is not for sale, I beg to differ. It has been yielding to & inviting Chinese interference, influence and oh so much Beijing money that it boggles the mind that most Cdns are so blithely unaware of it.
And how msm hasn’t acknowledged Sam Cooper’s outstanding & brilliant investigative journalism is equally shocking. Therefore, the public remains uneducated because it’s not like the Liberal government would blow the whistle on themselves. So, there you have it, let’s boo the American sports teams, helplessly complain about DJT & Musk & ignore that Beijing is front & center in the PMO, the cabinet & the Liberal-appointed senate.
This is the one of the main reasons why I don't listen to mainstream media and have no trust in the powers that be. Lets not forget what the Ayatollah said also.
It seems to me that there is a tension between an essentially isolationist “me first” (and pay me back!) “Fortress America” impulse on the one hand, and assuring that the US remains the sole economic world hegemon - indeed, the provider of the world’s reserve currency - on the other.
Because dominating the Asia-Pacific is difficult, and it is not obvious to me that letting Russia run free in Europe is compatible with “containing the Chinese rival”.
I also wonder what South Korea and Japan make of it all - not to mention the ASEAN nations and Australia, which has now been told that any treaty it has with the US is worthless. [See the comments of former PM Malcolm Turnbull on the Australian National Broadcaster’].
Especially when (for example) it is Japanese and Korean car manufacturers that have savaged the American competition; and it is Taiwan that is vital because of its unique chips manufacturing capacity.
For if a poor country like North Korea can acquire its own nuclear weapons (or similar weapons of mass destruction), virtually anyone can.
Indeed, readers of a certain age will remember that Charles De Gaulle developed France’s independent nuclear deterrent because he doubted that the US would come to Europe’s defense, “in a crunch” - as may now have been made clear.
So I wonder if it means that proliferation is on the horizon – which of course poses its own risk.
Richard, this is a great comment. I give a monthly off-the-record chat to a Toronto audience and this is shockingly close to my latest remarks. Both in terms of nuclear proliferation being likely and also the tension -- probably self-defeating in the end -- between America as isolationist and America as global economic hegemon.
My suspicion is that there are lucrative but unmonitored financial benefits in Russia for the Trump organization and Trump's family, which over-ride any concerns about the US national interest. Just like the Russian oligarchs had (and may still have) the opportunity for lucrative investments in the UK, despite the origin of their riches and their loyalties. Money has no nationality. Especially if it is in American dollars.
We have to start taking Trump and his movement at their word. This isn’t about hotels or money.
Very good points. Missing I believe is the biggest problem. We need to have a functional Parliament. We are today and will be tomorrow lost going against Trump because we have no leadership going up against what is a clear, defined and American centric view of what the world should be. We will have on March 9 a new Prime Minister who as a first step will investigate striking a deal with the New Democrats, who have cratered in the polls and need time to rebuild, to either continue on with their support or declare an economic Emergency and keep Parliament prorogued to present a Team Canada approach to Trump. The irony will be traumatic. We will be decrying the American Nazi while being ruled by an unelected leader who either continued on with an arrangement the populace does not want or shut down Parliament. He or she will be supported by 2 parties, one third of whom have already announced they are quitting. The people who are quitting will be in charge of the most critical decisions in our country's future in my 7 decades. Maybe the new Prime Minister will call an election instead. So sometime around the beginning or middle of May we'll be in a position to sit down and have a discussion with Mister Trump. God knows, given the past month, that the world will be radically different by that time. But we now need to buckle down and realize that the guy across the table from us knows all of this, smells our weakness, and is planning to take advantage of it.
Absolutely correct! Time to wake up, Canada!
Well argued. However, I see the analysis as a cautionary tale - a scenario - and not a firm proposal: while the author may have accurately described the Trump administration's intentions they game those intentions out as if the long-term execution will be flawless and inevitable. The current administration has strength and energy but lacks competence. And like empowered bullies more generally, hasn't factored in the extent to which and ways in which other actors (even relatively weaker ones) have agency - some American citizens and other nation-states will react in ways that were not sufficiently factored into their strategy. That will complicate matters. I just do not think that we are quite yet in a situation where it's 'America intends to do X, therefore we must do Y'. Intention and outcome are different things. But we certainly could end up there. My point is: I understand that many people are both shocked and demoralized right now but that is passing and resolve is firming up and I don't discount the possibility that 'New Republicanism' is a movement that can be defeated - or for those whose geopolitical tastes run Realist, significantly blunted - through forces both outside the US and within. I am not saying it will, but that it can. One way to usher in New Republicanism is to react as it it were inevitable (i.e., a purely defensive mindset). It's a game. A game has moves. To win, we need to play.
Good article - the information, like this, flooding Cloud Cuckoo Land on the Rideau surely should be waking up the living dead. We shall see.
One point to add to the discussion. America going its own way with a firm belief that it represents the New Jerusalem is as old as America. The anomaly was, as noted, post-WWII. So, we're reverting to more normal America as it navigates the Hobbesian world that is jousting place for nation states. However, the Marshall Plan was designed to pull Europe out of the mess left by WWII to make the world safe for American business and its geopolitical advantage. Everyone went along largely because there was little choice and it worked more or less to the benefit of all. It still does but as America reverts to its norm, things will revert to all sorting out what their interests are and jostling for advantage that will revert to that Hobbesian world as noted. A new stasis will evolve and life will go on. It will be less comfortable and participants in that world need to retain a much sharper focus as to what's going on than has been the practice when America assumed the role of guardian of the liberal world order. Minnows, such as Canada, will find this a much less comfortable place in which to swim but swim we must. And, we will. We need to be clear eyed and watch our assumptions. No one cares about Canada except Canadians. That needs to be the watchword.
The current Cloud Cuckoo Land on the Rideau does not have the IQ needed for understanding the current situations. The Conservatives might.
I completely agree with this analysis. Look at the ages of the New Republicans. They will be around for a while. They do not just have different policy ideas; they are angry. And I mean angry. And I don't understand why they are so angry. But, Trump holds the constellation of actors around him together. When he is gone, they will remain but most are a lot less popular and they are competitive. We'll see if that constellation holds together. But, that is too close to suggesting that hope is a course of action. It would be a huge mistake to think that this will go away.
They’re angry because they’ve been personally attacked by legacy media and university institutions pushing DEI that disadvantages white men. It was always inevitable that there would be a big swing back against DEI. Trump caught those voters and as long as they feel their way of life is threatened they’ll stay angry. But many will calm down soon. All rising tides eventually fall and I think this was a rising tide lifted by the last US administration and some of Trumps worst policy decisions will quickly reverse some of the strongest and most angry tides. People can’t stay angry forever.
They're angry because they believe the lies. America had a completely manageable debt until Reagan. Now, the US "Goebbels" networks have told them who to hate and having a pathetic education system, and complete indifference to fact-checking, they've fallen in line with those who will take everything they have.
Yepp. Russia and China has each separately made it clear that each wants to eat the World. China made its intentions abundantly clear, Russia has been less clear but the intent is there. USA does not wish to be eaten, so ......
Now that we've won the hockey tournament...perhaps we're amenable to considering a useful idea...the implementation of near-union, north/south relations with the US. The Indians found it to be useful, could we? Could we ditch (or at least back-burner) our current US mouth-foaming to discuss the conditions under which we recognize that it's shorter to ship from Calgary to Houston than it is Halifax, Nova Scotia?
Could we?
I'm in.
It'll be a small gathering, CJ. Could I buy you a beer? Your choice...Bud or Blue.
Right. The Fathers of Confederation ignored that our trade routes were North/South and not East/West. Their loyalties were to the British and felt that a Confederation running East/West would guarantee a British Stronghold against the rebels to the South and the French threat.
This is an awesome précis of the situation at hand. Canadians until lately had absolutely no idea of the emotional power of “buy American” and supporting your own country. Thank God (please don’t suspend me for using the uncanadian G word) Canadians are finally starting to appreciate what it means. It means your fellow countrymen appreciate that you are creating jobs for them and also that you take pride in producing a quality product to avoid embarrassing yourself even if it costs more. That is why the mutual quasi-BDSM spanking exercises of reciprocal tariff wars a la Boss Ford will lead nowhere since people at least in the US will see the extra costs of tariffs as a worthwhile cost to keep domestic jobs. - and as a side benefit, to help reduce income taxes ( in the US at least).
So I hope that the new found pride in being Canadian extends to working harder to produce quality products and not just putting a maple leaf on cheap Chinese crap a la Canadian Tire. The benefits of taking pride in your work are awesome!
"it’s only going to get worse from here"...or not. I find the extremism of this article offputting because the extreme suggests that non-America won't regroup, react and respond. It's only taken Canada 3 weeks to discover it actually has a self-consciousness (well buried under its "post national" self-image).
In my view, the rest of the world--particularly Canada--has indeed taken a free ride on the US. The evidence is everywhere including the fact that we've tolerated a silly boy who has embarrassed us on the world stage for 10 years.
The extreme notion described here--total power vs total weakness--ought first to consider the lessons of priority, speed, determination and impact now being displayed by America--for the public's benefit. The absence of that learning has indeed "poisoned" international governance for decades. The evidence is no more visible than the fact that the globally richest 10% of the world's population earn more than half the world's income.
That's the stuff of war.
I believe Tom that the ills of Canada run deeper than "we've tolerated a silly boy who has embarrassed us on the world stage for 10 years." as much as I agree with that sentiment. He was democratically elected for 3 terms FFS, we did that...not me, but us as a whole. Why did we buy into the DEI stuff so readily and now so difficult to get rid of? It seemed a thing that bled into our culture from the US but nevertheless we bought into it. Why? We have so little to be ashamed of, despite doing things badly in hindsight...we don't see to be able to course correct. In the last couple of days get this as an example....Eby and the Health experts finally agreed that the safe supply policy is flawed and moved to correct at least one of the flaws. The government has now mandated that substance abusers take their safe supply at the source. They now have to take the pills they get from the pharmacist at the pharmacy and not wander out to sell them to others as has been uncovered. The NDP despite years of denying that there was evidence of 'diversion' finally admitted not too long ago that it was happening. They finally released a study, apparently in error. Today there are 2 stories from 'doctors' opining that this is a mistake and would cause 'harm'. Where has the common sense that I remember Canada having?
CF...complete agreement. The "silly boy" comment was the most disparaging thing I could think of for our Prime Minister. He has brought Canada to its knees. Not a flattering image in this woke era.
I may be misinterpreting you but what Elon Musk is doing is not for the public's benefit. It's completely reckless -we all know there's too much bureaucracy but it needs to be trimmed carefully which is difficult. It's easy sending in a bunch of kids with sledgehammers. He did that at Twitter which cut the value of the company in half and turned it into a sewer. And it's for Musk's benefit - getting rid of Inspectors General doesn't help anyone and a lot of what Musk is doing is smothering investigations into his own obnoxious, if not illegal, business practices. You are definitely right that this will help the richest 0.1% of America
A couple of comments, J. I was talking about Trump rather than Musk. As I understand their relationship, Trump directs...Musk implements (probably with lots of interaction tho').
Re: sledgenammers vs "trimming carefully". J, this has failed so many times as to negate its practicality. More has been "trimmed" with the Trump's intent and Musk's digging in these past 3 weeks than in all of recorded history (altho' any history beyond about WWII is beyond my scope!).
Folks like Musk and Trump are destined to be "obnoxious". There are few nice people who really get things done. Hence the phrase "Lead me, follow me...or get the hell out of the road."
Watch the golden idols tumble, J. You will see delivered most of the promises Trump made. None of us will like the cost of implementation...but we'll all like the results. Trump will go down in history as one of the most influential people of the 21st century in bringing better lives to more people.
We all love the idea of a white knight coming to our rescue and I actually hope you are right. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what's happening. I think Musk and Trump are both insane and are in it for the money and power at the expense of democracy. I even doubt Trump knows what Musk is actually up to. Did you see any of the video of him in the oval office signing all the executive orders? It didn't inspire confidence. "0oh, that's a good one." Or, concerningly, "Does anyone know what that means?". Time will tell.
J. Can't argue with you...time will tell. However, I find contradiction in the notion that 2 of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world are "in it for the money and power".
But again, time will tell. In the meantime, I'm liking the jab in the arse its given Canada.
There's never enough for people like that. Could a junkie have too much heroin? I really think we need to start looking at extreme wealth as a mental health problem. You're right. Why would they want more? But they do. I'm sure most would love to be the first trillionaire.
I believe that when wealth exceeds needs, it becomes simply a measure of performance. It's a bit like your "heroin" in that "accomplishment" is unlimited.
Americans, and Canadians, do not want to pay for the government and services that exist. Cuts need to be done. Can’t run debt forever.
Or the rich could pay their fair share of taxes. Just sayin'
I agree with the author about American expansionism, however the plan will fail. America cannot expand to Canada or Greenland or Panama without diplomacy and its traditional role as the worlds protectors, which they happily assumed after WW2 and which Trump is now abdicating in full. He needs to pick a lane, he cannot threaten and make demand in one breath and expect adherence to these demands without retaliation and countries looking to divorce themselves from the relationships. The end result will be USA, based on current behaviour, resuming its place PRE WW1 as the isolated country it was.
This is correct. America may want expansion but Americans are not (yet) willing to spill blood for such expansion, let alone pay for the costs associated with an occupation.
New Republicans are tired of sending Americans into foreign wars and are not going to support a military intervention unless they feel directly threatened.
That’s not a very sunny view of Canada’s economic value, to say that occupying Canada would be a net cost to the United States. What are we, East Germany? We’re not all Nunavut. We have a few productive regions and sectors that could with the right prodding be as wealthy as Mississippi and Alabama. Think big!
I guess, maybe ? I am still a bit reluctant to hang upon and grand coherent ideological narratives about Trump. He is all id and ego, with zero super ego. Those around him just adjust to what he wants at the moment. Rubio is a great example. To hear him recite like a hostage in a ransom video the bit about all the great opportunity with Russia "... And remember if Donald Trump had been president, there would have been no war" blah blah blah"... You are saying this guy had / has a coherent and consistent ideology ?
But 1000% agree with your last 2 sentences.
The point is - you have to look PAST Trump.
...and that is something most Canadians find very, very difficult.
I totally agree about looking past Trump but I think there is a bit too much inkblot / rorschach reading of what America is thinking as opposed to what the current King EOs into existence. Pundits auguring directions/ideologies/vibe shifts remind me a little too much of that scene from Life of Brian where the mob screams in certainty what Brian's lost shoe means. Like the article says the Libertarians see him as this "small government" guy... The "Fortress America" people see him as their isolationist guy. Even the theocrats think he is King Solomon FFS where as he really is this blathering bull in a china shop Chance The Gardner. Whatever the motivations, reasoned or randomized, 1000% agree, we have to act to deal with these new realities of an inconstant and angry to the world America. I thought Harper's tone and direction in yesterday's op ed really struck a good direction. Hopefully as a country we can rise to the challenge to implement the spirit of that.
I think this is - sadly - bang-on correct. We ignore this shift at our peril.