I think the American attitude to Canada is not unlike the Russian attitude toward Ukraine in the run-up to the invasion. These guys are barely a real country, so why would they put up a fight to protect their independence? I think we need to show Trump and the Americans that we aren't going to tolerate annexation any more than the US would let China eat it.
Protest frankly often fails to achieve anything, but I think protests can succeed if people are sympathetic to your cause but don't really know it exists. Americans right now seem only dimly aware of how serious things are in Canada. If our political parties united to lead giant anti-annexation rallies, if every Tesla dealership was blocked with a human chain, Americans might wake up to the fact that they behaving dishonourably and making a new enemy for no reason.
I have to say, Dan, among all the commentary, assessment, fawning or bluster over the current state of US/Canadian affairs, yours is the voice that is the most reasoned, the most informed, and rings most true. Please keep going.
I watched CBC last night in the run up to Prime Minister Trudeau press statement. I was surprised by the civility of the crew. I was also impressed with the Prime Minister switching from English to French during the event. I know that Canadians are in the process of forming a new government but given the examples I have for leaders Mr Trudeau is impressive.
Blaming Canada and Mexico for our problems with drugs and immigration policies is reprehensible. Though I feel that most of what comes from the President these days is reprehensible.
Timothy, Canada has a YUGE problem with fentanyl labs and international distribution - not only to the USA. Journalist Sam Cooper has done excellent work on this - he has a substack. Also Stephen Punwasi did a nice summary by way of twitter thread a few days ago. Canada is an international hub for criminal activity because we have no effective rules around money laundering, we have no vetting in our immigration system, and we have a catch-and-release criminal justice-system. We have 4000 criminal organizations in Canada. The USA cannot fix its drug problem without help from its neighbours, any more than Canada can solve its illegal gun problem without help from the USA.
I don't doubt that Canada has it's share of problems that are comparable to the US. The difference is that tariffs is not the way to work toward solving them. As I understand the PM is on his way out and a new government will more that likely address these problems. I don't think damaging both economies is the answer.
I have a decades long record of opposing tariffs of all kinds, including counter-tariffs. ("Just because your neighbour throws rocks in their harbour doesn't mean you should throw rocks in yours.") I'm not in any way a fan of Trump's tariffs, or the "Team Canada" retaliation in kind. There *should* be better methods of resolving issues.
Nevertheless, I can appreciate Trump's perspective. His first term was almost entirely wasted by internal division within the GOP, and by distractions and foot-dragging by the deep state. He has one term left to make a difference, and he is understandably impatient. Canada has a long record of foot-dragging and dissembling on matters of importance to the USA: national defense, border security, and trade. Trump is entirely correct not to trust any promises from Canada on those matters - especially when "Team Canada" would rather engage in childish saber-rattling than get down to brass tacks and make some much-needed changes that are in our own interests in the first place. If I were Trump, I'd be pissed off, too, trying to get some action out of such obdurate and moronic "allies." What levers does he have, other than bringing economic pressure to bear, to get Canada's attention?
You’re right that Canada has a money laundering problem, but you’re making a few assumptions here. First that fentanyl from Canada is a big problem in the US. 20kg were found last year, compare to 9000kg from Mexico.
The second assumption is that even if Canada were to completely stop fentanyl from crossing the border, do you think that would change what Trump wants to do with the tariffs? Fentanyl is just an excuse and he will find something else to blame the tariffs on.
He’s a bully. The only language a bully understands is power and fear.
We make vastly more fentanyl in Canada than we can possibly consume domestically. It must be made for the export market. (Some has been found in Australia.) Less attention is paid to the northern border, so it stands to reason that more goes through undetected. Moreover, once the southern border is secured, more traffic will come north unless we do something about it. Trump is thinking three steps ahead. If Canadians keep telling ourselves that we are not a problem, we will keep becoming more of a problem. It's the same head-in-the-sand attitude Canadians have with everything. We are too morally superior to need to change our ways.
Grant - Trump can't even think coherently about what he did yesterday, let alone think "three steps ahead." His rationale for tariffs shifts on a daily basis - from fentanyl and migrants to trade deficits to defence spending. His advisors have convinced him that tariffs are beneficial to the US, so he's running with that, throwing out "justifications" as he goes.
When we lived in Canada, our children learned in school that Canada won the war of 1812. When we moved across the border, their US teachers basically skipped over 1812. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.
It was England (as it was then known - the UK is a modern term) who won the War of 1812. Canada did not exist until 1867 and Canada had no army of it's own so it was an English army.
Nevertheless, yes, we learned in school that "we" won the War. What a lot of Americans simply don't know is that "we" actually burned the White House in that War.
It was Britain or the United Kingdom, then, too. And there effectively was no distinction between Canadian and British in that era. To read backwards and make such distinctions is ahistorical. So, yeah, we won.
I thank you for your clarification of my cloudy thinking on nomenclature. I submit, however, that while you are correct, my point remains. Canada simply didn't exist except as a geographical reference [shades of Napoleon's description of Italy] until 1867. The only army in Canada in the War of 1812 was the British/English/UK army and there was no concept of a Canadian army. I politely submit, therefore that "Canada" could not have won the War as "Canada" did not exist.
Nevertheless, "we" (i.e. the non-US side by whatever name) did burn the White House.
We don’t know yet just how bad this could be for Canada but people will experience varying degrees of hardship as a result of Trump’s attempts to weaken our nation. I believe he’s taking advantage of our political transition and dependence on free trade to destabilize us so he can take over the country. I agree with Ivan. He doesn’t see us as a real country -which is bizarre- and he seems to have thought very highly of Putins swift invasion of Ukraine. Trump may be following Putins lead with a focus on controlling his closest neighbors. He has been clear that he plans to take over Canada with economic coercion. This is a national emergency and our government should start today to develop alliances and trade deals with other nations and turn its attention to developing, with the private sector, the infrastructure in Canada to get our products to tide water. It’s an all hands on deck moment. It will be generations before we can absolutely trust the USA again. Your piece was incisive and cut right to the heart of the issue. Thank you.
The silence from my many American friends has been interesting. Hopefully this will show they have skin in our future. There may also already be a chill on free speech there in fear of reprisals now that Trump is weaponizing the arms of justice.
Internet trolls are busy posing as Democrats, urging folks not to protest lest Trump use protests as an excuse to invoke "martial law". The truth is, if you do not protest, then you lose your rights and accept an overlord. Get out there, protest.
Kevin, you have to be blind not to realize that the "arms of justice" in America have been weaponized for decades - by Democrats, and not only against Trump.
Bush met with the head of the IRS twice in his 8 years in office; Obama 147 times. When Congress demanded to see the emails of the IRS chief, the computers suddenly went AWOL. The Obama administration illegally spied on journalists, and on American citizens. The CIA illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then continued to destabilize their own government with ridiculous impeachment cases. 51 former intelligence officials signed onto the fabrication that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation - which alone (polls show) was sufficient to turn the 2020 election against Trump. Everything got a million times worse, and more blatantly partisan, under "Biden." It has been non-stop lawfare against Trump ever since. Most of it absurd on its face.
Oh Grant. Piffle. Get out of that conspiracy silo. As for "non-stop lawfare"....Mr. Trump has acted outside the law, repeatedly. Being held to the law of the land is not persecution, it is justice.
Up in Canada here. I’m new to your Substack Dan Gardner but so far am surprisingly really appreciating your reasoned, thoughtful commentaries.
Against today’s US leadership viewpoints and actions Reagan’s words really stand out and reinforce your point beautifully.
It’s going to be a very bad time in Canada for the next while but I see a multitude of ways Canadians have already begun to rethink the trust we have always placed in our southern neighbour; “Bye, America” shopping decisions and rethinking US travel destinations to name just two. Neither citizen action will devastate the US conglomerates business up here but it is indicative of a grass roots feeling of absolute betrayal and I for one will not soon forget that this impending threat to our livelihoods, our wellbeing and our very sovereignty are being inflicted on Canada by our best friend.
My mind will never be easy with that relationship ever again, regardless of what happens politically a few months, in two or four years or beyond. Trust is funny that way, once broken very hard to regain.
Janet, I have a doctorate in political philosophy from Oxford University, and a law degree. I am very well informed, and a serious thinker. Everything I said above in a matter of public record. If you think it is a "conspiracy theory," you are the one who is embracing "Piffle." No matter what you think about Trump's personality - I happen to think he contains a lot of awful traits - it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he is more sinned against than sinning since entering the political arena in 2015.
Hi Grant! Look at my many university degrees! I am a Very Serious Person. And now that I have established I am the voice of Truth, I declare it beyond a reasonable doubt that what I believe is true. And since you disagree, well ... you are being kinda ridiculous here, friend.
Dan, this is a pathetic appeal to shame instead of reason. Once upon a time, I thought you were better than that.
Are you now trying to argue that having impressive degrees in the precise subject matters in question is irrelevant to the accusation of spreading "conspiracy theories" and living in a "silo." Do you honestly side with those insults? You are a lost man, Dan. You can't decide whether subject-matter expertise matters or not; one day it does, the next it doesn't. You don't engage in good faith debate.
Of course expertise is valuable, Grant. But read what you wrote: You cited your educational background, then declared -- on that basis alone! -- that your interpretation of what is an extremely complex problem set, an interpretation which a great many highly qualified observers would disagree with, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is not "let's respect expertise." That is an almost comically arrogant appeal to authority.
And, Grant, with you, it's true, I "do not engage in good faith debate." In fact, I do not engage in debate of any kind. Because I have learned that you are the most close-minded person I have encountered in many, many years. You don't listen. You don't explain. You don't truly engage. You simply browbeat the other person until they accede to your view, or you insult them for refusing to do so.
It is simply impossible to have a constructive discussion with you. So I've long since given up trying.
We used to value degrees more up here in Canada but then we had to listen to the piffling of our home grown Jordan Pettersen’s and ‘freedom’ convoy folks so, yeah, now degrees don’t seem to necessarily mean the average Joe can necessarily trust what ‘academics’ say.
From my prospective, I try to use primary sources for information, not self described subject experts, and when I do have a listen to voices, like Dan Gardner’s for example, I listen for historical fact sources to be presented that I can then check myself and I am very, very weary of sources who defend Trump by playing the victim card and denigrating the other side.
Even if you are correct about Trump, I respectfully disagree that anything coming out of the Oval Office in his second term so far is reasoned, measured, justifiable or makes good political or business sense and I think that is the point Dan Gardner is making in the most straightforward of terms (or rather he is using words from President Reagan’s own address and the historical citations therein) to make that point.
All I can say is if what you say about your qualifications is true I won't be going to Oxford or doing a law degree if that's the level of analysis you get out of them.
There is no reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump is more a sinner than sinned against. His record spells that out with perfect clarity. On that basis I cannot agree with your self proclaimed status as "very well informed" or "a serious thinker".
On the laptop, they stated "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation". And that's true! ("earmarks"). Shady sourcing, seeming optimized to produce political upheaval, all sorts of strange characters involved, etc. Note it's entirely possible for disinformation operations to mix in true material. The Republican dishonesty on these points is very telling. As in, it may not be a Russian op - but it sure does look suspicious, and any reasonable Intelligence analyst would say so. "But some material was verified" is not a refutation - lies can be mixed with truth, as we see.
I've always wondered that since Hunter Biden has Secret Service protection, his movements are all tracked, and so that story of him dropping it off for repair could be proven true or false. But there's so much partisan distortion I'd never been able to find an answer there.
You don't seem to know the back-story about Hunter's laptop. When it was delivered to the FBI, it was verified as authentic quite quickly - as you would expect. But it posed a problem for the rabidly Democratic deep-state FBI members responsible for handling it: how to suppress charges, and knowledge of the laptop, for over a year until the 2020 election was over. They sat on it, but they couldn't be sure a copy didn't exist that might leak, so they proactively devised a sabotage plan. They rounded up the 51 former intelligence officers and told them that there might be a leak about a laptop, and they should cover it by attributing it to Russian disinformation. The false narrative was concocted as a cover story before the public was even aware of the laptop. Somehow, Giuliani got ahold of a copy of the laptop and when he released information from it the deep state was ready to spring their false narrative about Russian disinformation. Now, perhaps all 51 former intelligence officers were idiot stooges who weren't curious enough to question the cover story they were handed; but I doubt it. And if they were stooges who got played, that's hardly exculpatory.
What you say seems confused to me. What do you mean by "verified as authentic"? As in, do you mean "the physical laptop was his", versus "every single file on it, every one without exception, was verified to be correct, and nothing has been deleted, no third party made any changes"? The longstanding Republican dishonesty of conflating the former with the latter is one aspect that makes them not credible to me. The common reply of "Some files were proved to be authentic" is deflection from the question there.
How did it get to the repair shop? i.e. who brought it there? If it really was Hunter Biden, why can't they prove it by tracking his movements? The part is odd to me, since I'd expect Democrats to be able to prove the opposite. But neither party seems to address this with real data.
Don't you think it's very very suspicious that the repair shop guy says he's legally blind so can't identify Hunter Biden? Again, the fact that no Republican can manage to admit something like "Yeah, that's really weird, it does seem odd" adds to my sense of something fishy going on here.
"Somehow, Giuliani got ahold of a copy ..."
Why do you think "The Russians supplied Giuliani with ..." can't be the "somehow"?
Seth, if the FBI had found any actual evidence of Russian disinformation on the laptop - any photoshopping, tell-tale metadata, erased files, etc. - they would have discredited it directly instead of monkeying around with second-hand bloviating by 51 former intelligence officers. They would have presented a slam dunk to the media, instead of merely, "Well, here are some folks who have have some suspicions based on not having actually examined it." That's why the 51 former intelligence officer claims were always dubious - but just plausible enough for gullible voters wanting to believe there was nothing to see.
There were thousands of photographs, emails, and documents on the laptop that were utterly damning. Don't you think the FBI would examine the most damning of them closely, right away, and have use all of their expertise and methods (e.g. legitimate FISA warrants) to cross-check their authenticity? If the first 73 images they examined forensically checked out as authentic, it hardly matters if one or two of the others were somehow planted by the Russians, does it? If there were any authentic damning images on the laptop, why would the Russians ruin a good thing by inserting some fakes that any old intelligence officer could identify second-hand and discredit the lot with? Give your head a shake. None of it makes any sense.
Again, you deflected from the question. Once more, can you prove no material at all was altered in any way? (not that some individual pieces are true). The answers seems to be "No", but you won't admit it. If Republicans could prove this, they would, but they can't. Similarly, can it be established by tracking that Hunter Biden really left the laptop in the shop? Again, if Republicans could, they would, they can't (I don't understand the Democratic side either here, but this is a partisan mess). Will you admit the story with the legally blind guy sounds really fishy? Apparently not.
The answer to "why would" is because the Russians know that Republicans would simply repeat any planted material, and claim it was true because it was found among authentic material. Any debunking would be a futile exercise in chasing lies, and we know how well that works in politics. Why would Trump claim "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there." when it's such obvious nonsense? Because he knows his base believes it, and his propagandists will defend it, and his cultists are insulated to ignore that it's a lie.
These aren't especially hard questions conceptually. The repeated Republican dishonesty about them, because the issues establish that the Russian disinformation operation idea is a reasonable suspicion, is very telling.
Trump is not a politician or a steward of the United States. He is someone who wants the best deal for his interests. Maybe there is a short term benefit to the U.S. But as you mention, the longer term effects could be devastating. People who don't study history can't conceive of a United States that might be weak or in need of allies. Skilled negotiation and the “art of the deal” are very different.
On the matter of trust, it bears noting that Trudeau lost Trump's trust a long time ago by saying different things to his face and behind his back. Remember when Trump called him "two faced"? Remember when Trudeau was caught on camera gossiping about Trump at a drinks party with other G7 leaders? Trudeau was still pretending to be Trump's friend and ally when he jetted off to Mar-a-Lago in December to supplicated for favours; but then immediately turned around and trash-talked Trump when he wanted to burnish his woke credentials - chastizing the American voters for once again declining to elect a woman as president. It probably wasn't a smart move for Liberals to ridicule their political rivals as "Maple MAGA" for four years while Trump was mounting his comeback, either. You don't build trust that way.
When a publicly traded company is mismanaged, its stock falls in value. This signals to corporate raiders an opportunity to buy up the shares on the cheap, take control of management, and reorganize the company to return it to profitability. The existence of corporate raiders keeps everyone on their toes; the threat of takeover benefits everyone in the system except the lazy or incompetent managers who drove the company down in the first place.
Sometimes, the managers of a failing company wake up to the threat of a corporate raider early enough to mount a defense. The defense typically consists in implementing the very corporate reorganization that the raider was planning to do. This is all that is happening to Canada now.
Trump is a political raider. He sees properties in his neighbourhood floundering, and is threatening to take them over and make them great again. Some members of the management of "Team Canada" have suddenly woken up from their ideological slumbers and are starting to discuss options to fix some things that have been problematic for generations: reducing interprovincial trade barriers, reducing immigration, canceling the self-destructive carbon tax, beefing up our military and border security, building pipelines east west and north, scrapping the regulatory regimes that throttle economic activity and investment in Canada, and maybe even getting rid of our agricultural marketing boards which have been an irritant in every trade negotiation we have tried to negotiate this century.
Other members of "Team Canada" management - the ones who most enthusiastically pushed us into this situation in the first place - are swallowing the poison pill, trying to make Canada an unattractive option for a takeover by blowing everything up in an all-out war of attrition. It remains to be seen whether Canada can select a new management in time to save itself, or whether some divisions of Canada Corp will take the buy-out.
Trump didn't get elected because of anything to do with Canada. Trump got elected because of the disastrous policies of the "Biden" administration, along with Democrat state and municipal ruination. From uncontrolled migration to DEI idiocy everywhere to weaponizing state agencies against political enemies... the rot runs deep and wide. Half of the American people had had enough, and quite deliberately elected a bull in the china shop to decisively end it. Trump's abrasive bulling and determination are not bugs, they are features of his administration.
Likewise, Canada isn't in dire straits because of anything Trump has done; we have been doing it to ourselves for generations, and this is merely the endgame playing itself out. I have been saying since the 1980s that Canada's two greatest virtues are envy and moral preening. Nobody wants to listen to sanctimonious pricks like Trudeau, who has ruined his own country in a dozen different dimensions at once. Even the massively delusional Canadian electorate has finally had enough of that.
There was indeed "competition" in both American elections. The competition was so good, Trudeau says he would have voted for the competition, against Trump, in both elections. And polls show that the competition would have been elected by a landslide among the Canadian voters both times, too. Which only goes to illustrate how idiotic Canadian voters are, and why Canada has been in a steep decline this century.
Oh, so you support the genocidal death cult, now, too, do you, Bob? I should have guessed. You are indeed the worst of the worst representative of Canadian envy and moral preening.
The genocidal Zionist death cult is an American problem, but no, I don't support them. If Trump is worried about national security threats, they are one of them.
I think the American attitude to Canada is not unlike the Russian attitude toward Ukraine in the run-up to the invasion. These guys are barely a real country, so why would they put up a fight to protect their independence? I think we need to show Trump and the Americans that we aren't going to tolerate annexation any more than the US would let China eat it.
Protest frankly often fails to achieve anything, but I think protests can succeed if people are sympathetic to your cause but don't really know it exists. Americans right now seem only dimly aware of how serious things are in Canada. If our political parties united to lead giant anti-annexation rallies, if every Tesla dealership was blocked with a human chain, Americans might wake up to the fact that they behaving dishonourably and making a new enemy for no reason.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and well written article.
I have to say, Dan, among all the commentary, assessment, fawning or bluster over the current state of US/Canadian affairs, yours is the voice that is the most reasoned, the most informed, and rings most true. Please keep going.
Very kind. Thank you.
I watched CBC last night in the run up to Prime Minister Trudeau press statement. I was surprised by the civility of the crew. I was also impressed with the Prime Minister switching from English to French during the event. I know that Canadians are in the process of forming a new government but given the examples I have for leaders Mr Trudeau is impressive.
Blaming Canada and Mexico for our problems with drugs and immigration policies is reprehensible. Though I feel that most of what comes from the President these days is reprehensible.
Timothy, Canada has a YUGE problem with fentanyl labs and international distribution - not only to the USA. Journalist Sam Cooper has done excellent work on this - he has a substack. Also Stephen Punwasi did a nice summary by way of twitter thread a few days ago. Canada is an international hub for criminal activity because we have no effective rules around money laundering, we have no vetting in our immigration system, and we have a catch-and-release criminal justice-system. We have 4000 criminal organizations in Canada. The USA cannot fix its drug problem without help from its neighbours, any more than Canada can solve its illegal gun problem without help from the USA.
I don't doubt that Canada has it's share of problems that are comparable to the US. The difference is that tariffs is not the way to work toward solving them. As I understand the PM is on his way out and a new government will more that likely address these problems. I don't think damaging both economies is the answer.
I have a decades long record of opposing tariffs of all kinds, including counter-tariffs. ("Just because your neighbour throws rocks in their harbour doesn't mean you should throw rocks in yours.") I'm not in any way a fan of Trump's tariffs, or the "Team Canada" retaliation in kind. There *should* be better methods of resolving issues.
Nevertheless, I can appreciate Trump's perspective. His first term was almost entirely wasted by internal division within the GOP, and by distractions and foot-dragging by the deep state. He has one term left to make a difference, and he is understandably impatient. Canada has a long record of foot-dragging and dissembling on matters of importance to the USA: national defense, border security, and trade. Trump is entirely correct not to trust any promises from Canada on those matters - especially when "Team Canada" would rather engage in childish saber-rattling than get down to brass tacks and make some much-needed changes that are in our own interests in the first place. If I were Trump, I'd be pissed off, too, trying to get some action out of such obdurate and moronic "allies." What levers does he have, other than bringing economic pressure to bear, to get Canada's attention?
You’re right that Canada has a money laundering problem, but you’re making a few assumptions here. First that fentanyl from Canada is a big problem in the US. 20kg were found last year, compare to 9000kg from Mexico.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/trump-fentanyl-border-us-canada-1.7413745
The second assumption is that even if Canada were to completely stop fentanyl from crossing the border, do you think that would change what Trump wants to do with the tariffs? Fentanyl is just an excuse and he will find something else to blame the tariffs on.
He’s a bully. The only language a bully understands is power and fear.
We make vastly more fentanyl in Canada than we can possibly consume domestically. It must be made for the export market. (Some has been found in Australia.) Less attention is paid to the northern border, so it stands to reason that more goes through undetected. Moreover, once the southern border is secured, more traffic will come north unless we do something about it. Trump is thinking three steps ahead. If Canadians keep telling ourselves that we are not a problem, we will keep becoming more of a problem. It's the same head-in-the-sand attitude Canadians have with everything. We are too morally superior to need to change our ways.
Grant - Trump can't even think coherently about what he did yesterday, let alone think "three steps ahead." His rationale for tariffs shifts on a daily basis - from fentanyl and migrants to trade deficits to defence spending. His advisors have convinced him that tariffs are beneficial to the US, so he's running with that, throwing out "justifications" as he goes.
A great piece of writing, Dan. Trust is so hard to create and so easy to destroy.
When we lived in Canada, our children learned in school that Canada won the war of 1812. When we moved across the border, their US teachers basically skipped over 1812. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.
A (polite) correction, Tom.
It was England (as it was then known - the UK is a modern term) who won the War of 1812. Canada did not exist until 1867 and Canada had no army of it's own so it was an English army.
Nevertheless, yes, we learned in school that "we" won the War. What a lot of Americans simply don't know is that "we" actually burned the White House in that War.
A (polite) correction, Ken.
It was Britain or the United Kingdom, then, too. And there effectively was no distinction between Canadian and British in that era. To read backwards and make such distinctions is ahistorical. So, yeah, we won.
Well! A reply by Mr. Gardner himself!
I thank you for your clarification of my cloudy thinking on nomenclature. I submit, however, that while you are correct, my point remains. Canada simply didn't exist except as a geographical reference [shades of Napoleon's description of Italy] until 1867. The only army in Canada in the War of 1812 was the British/English/UK army and there was no concept of a Canadian army. I politely submit, therefore that "Canada" could not have won the War as "Canada" did not exist.
Nevertheless, "we" (i.e. the non-US side by whatever name) did burn the White House.
We don’t know yet just how bad this could be for Canada but people will experience varying degrees of hardship as a result of Trump’s attempts to weaken our nation. I believe he’s taking advantage of our political transition and dependence on free trade to destabilize us so he can take over the country. I agree with Ivan. He doesn’t see us as a real country -which is bizarre- and he seems to have thought very highly of Putins swift invasion of Ukraine. Trump may be following Putins lead with a focus on controlling his closest neighbors. He has been clear that he plans to take over Canada with economic coercion. This is a national emergency and our government should start today to develop alliances and trade deals with other nations and turn its attention to developing, with the private sector, the infrastructure in Canada to get our products to tide water. It’s an all hands on deck moment. It will be generations before we can absolutely trust the USA again. Your piece was incisive and cut right to the heart of the issue. Thank you.
The silence from my many American friends has been interesting. Hopefully this will show they have skin in our future. There may also already be a chill on free speech there in fear of reprisals now that Trump is weaponizing the arms of justice.
Internet trolls are busy posing as Democrats, urging folks not to protest lest Trump use protests as an excuse to invoke "martial law". The truth is, if you do not protest, then you lose your rights and accept an overlord. Get out there, protest.
Kevin, you have to be blind not to realize that the "arms of justice" in America have been weaponized for decades - by Democrats, and not only against Trump.
Bush met with the head of the IRS twice in his 8 years in office; Obama 147 times. When Congress demanded to see the emails of the IRS chief, the computers suddenly went AWOL. The Obama administration illegally spied on journalists, and on American citizens. The CIA illegally obtained FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then continued to destabilize their own government with ridiculous impeachment cases. 51 former intelligence officials signed onto the fabrication that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation - which alone (polls show) was sufficient to turn the 2020 election against Trump. Everything got a million times worse, and more blatantly partisan, under "Biden." It has been non-stop lawfare against Trump ever since. Most of it absurd on its face.
Oh Grant. Piffle. Get out of that conspiracy silo. As for "non-stop lawfare"....Mr. Trump has acted outside the law, repeatedly. Being held to the law of the land is not persecution, it is justice.
Up in Canada here. I’m new to your Substack Dan Gardner but so far am surprisingly really appreciating your reasoned, thoughtful commentaries.
Against today’s US leadership viewpoints and actions Reagan’s words really stand out and reinforce your point beautifully.
It’s going to be a very bad time in Canada for the next while but I see a multitude of ways Canadians have already begun to rethink the trust we have always placed in our southern neighbour; “Bye, America” shopping decisions and rethinking US travel destinations to name just two. Neither citizen action will devastate the US conglomerates business up here but it is indicative of a grass roots feeling of absolute betrayal and I for one will not soon forget that this impending threat to our livelihoods, our wellbeing and our very sovereignty are being inflicted on Canada by our best friend.
My mind will never be easy with that relationship ever again, regardless of what happens politically a few months, in two or four years or beyond. Trust is funny that way, once broken very hard to regain.
Janet, I have a doctorate in political philosophy from Oxford University, and a law degree. I am very well informed, and a serious thinker. Everything I said above in a matter of public record. If you think it is a "conspiracy theory," you are the one who is embracing "Piffle." No matter what you think about Trump's personality - I happen to think he contains a lot of awful traits - it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he is more sinned against than sinning since entering the political arena in 2015.
Hi Grant! Look at my many university degrees! I am a Very Serious Person. And now that I have established I am the voice of Truth, I declare it beyond a reasonable doubt that what I believe is true. And since you disagree, well ... you are being kinda ridiculous here, friend.
QE and D. Can't argue with logic.
Grant should write a book called The Art of the Non Sequitur
Dan, this is a pathetic appeal to shame instead of reason. Once upon a time, I thought you were better than that.
Are you now trying to argue that having impressive degrees in the precise subject matters in question is irrelevant to the accusation of spreading "conspiracy theories" and living in a "silo." Do you honestly side with those insults? You are a lost man, Dan. You can't decide whether subject-matter expertise matters or not; one day it does, the next it doesn't. You don't engage in good faith debate.
Of course expertise is valuable, Grant. But read what you wrote: You cited your educational background, then declared -- on that basis alone! -- that your interpretation of what is an extremely complex problem set, an interpretation which a great many highly qualified observers would disagree with, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is not "let's respect expertise." That is an almost comically arrogant appeal to authority.
And, Grant, with you, it's true, I "do not engage in good faith debate." In fact, I do not engage in debate of any kind. Because I have learned that you are the most close-minded person I have encountered in many, many years. You don't listen. You don't explain. You don't truly engage. You simply browbeat the other person until they accede to your view, or you insult them for refusing to do so.
It is simply impossible to have a constructive discussion with you. So I've long since given up trying.
We used to value degrees more up here in Canada but then we had to listen to the piffling of our home grown Jordan Pettersen’s and ‘freedom’ convoy folks so, yeah, now degrees don’t seem to necessarily mean the average Joe can necessarily trust what ‘academics’ say.
From my prospective, I try to use primary sources for information, not self described subject experts, and when I do have a listen to voices, like Dan Gardner’s for example, I listen for historical fact sources to be presented that I can then check myself and I am very, very weary of sources who defend Trump by playing the victim card and denigrating the other side.
Even if you are correct about Trump, I respectfully disagree that anything coming out of the Oval Office in his second term so far is reasoned, measured, justifiable or makes good political or business sense and I think that is the point Dan Gardner is making in the most straightforward of terms (or rather he is using words from President Reagan’s own address and the historical citations therein) to make that point.
Piffle and spam are one and the same.
Are they? When you see disagreement with your stated position as "spam" you have truly gone down the rabbithole!
All I can say is if what you say about your qualifications is true I won't be going to Oxford or doing a law degree if that's the level of analysis you get out of them.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, Dave.
There is no reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump is more a sinner than sinned against. His record spells that out with perfect clarity. On that basis I cannot agree with your self proclaimed status as "very well informed" or "a serious thinker".
On the laptop, they stated "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation". And that's true! ("earmarks"). Shady sourcing, seeming optimized to produce political upheaval, all sorts of strange characters involved, etc. Note it's entirely possible for disinformation operations to mix in true material. The Republican dishonesty on these points is very telling. As in, it may not be a Russian op - but it sure does look suspicious, and any reasonable Intelligence analyst would say so. "But some material was verified" is not a refutation - lies can be mixed with truth, as we see.
I've always wondered that since Hunter Biden has Secret Service protection, his movements are all tracked, and so that story of him dropping it off for repair could be proven true or false. But there's so much partisan distortion I'd never been able to find an answer there.
You don't seem to know the back-story about Hunter's laptop. When it was delivered to the FBI, it was verified as authentic quite quickly - as you would expect. But it posed a problem for the rabidly Democratic deep-state FBI members responsible for handling it: how to suppress charges, and knowledge of the laptop, for over a year until the 2020 election was over. They sat on it, but they couldn't be sure a copy didn't exist that might leak, so they proactively devised a sabotage plan. They rounded up the 51 former intelligence officers and told them that there might be a leak about a laptop, and they should cover it by attributing it to Russian disinformation. The false narrative was concocted as a cover story before the public was even aware of the laptop. Somehow, Giuliani got ahold of a copy of the laptop and when he released information from it the deep state was ready to spring their false narrative about Russian disinformation. Now, perhaps all 51 former intelligence officers were idiot stooges who weren't curious enough to question the cover story they were handed; but I doubt it. And if they were stooges who got played, that's hardly exculpatory.
What you say seems confused to me. What do you mean by "verified as authentic"? As in, do you mean "the physical laptop was his", versus "every single file on it, every one without exception, was verified to be correct, and nothing has been deleted, no third party made any changes"? The longstanding Republican dishonesty of conflating the former with the latter is one aspect that makes them not credible to me. The common reply of "Some files were proved to be authentic" is deflection from the question there.
How did it get to the repair shop? i.e. who brought it there? If it really was Hunter Biden, why can't they prove it by tracking his movements? The part is odd to me, since I'd expect Democrats to be able to prove the opposite. But neither party seems to address this with real data.
Don't you think it's very very suspicious that the repair shop guy says he's legally blind so can't identify Hunter Biden? Again, the fact that no Republican can manage to admit something like "Yeah, that's really weird, it does seem odd" adds to my sense of something fishy going on here.
"Somehow, Giuliani got ahold of a copy ..."
Why do you think "The Russians supplied Giuliani with ..." can't be the "somehow"?
Seth, if the FBI had found any actual evidence of Russian disinformation on the laptop - any photoshopping, tell-tale metadata, erased files, etc. - they would have discredited it directly instead of monkeying around with second-hand bloviating by 51 former intelligence officers. They would have presented a slam dunk to the media, instead of merely, "Well, here are some folks who have have some suspicions based on not having actually examined it." That's why the 51 former intelligence officer claims were always dubious - but just plausible enough for gullible voters wanting to believe there was nothing to see.
There were thousands of photographs, emails, and documents on the laptop that were utterly damning. Don't you think the FBI would examine the most damning of them closely, right away, and have use all of their expertise and methods (e.g. legitimate FISA warrants) to cross-check their authenticity? If the first 73 images they examined forensically checked out as authentic, it hardly matters if one or two of the others were somehow planted by the Russians, does it? If there were any authentic damning images on the laptop, why would the Russians ruin a good thing by inserting some fakes that any old intelligence officer could identify second-hand and discredit the lot with? Give your head a shake. None of it makes any sense.
Again, you deflected from the question. Once more, can you prove no material at all was altered in any way? (not that some individual pieces are true). The answers seems to be "No", but you won't admit it. If Republicans could prove this, they would, but they can't. Similarly, can it be established by tracking that Hunter Biden really left the laptop in the shop? Again, if Republicans could, they would, they can't (I don't understand the Democratic side either here, but this is a partisan mess). Will you admit the story with the legally blind guy sounds really fishy? Apparently not.
The answer to "why would" is because the Russians know that Republicans would simply repeat any planted material, and claim it was true because it was found among authentic material. Any debunking would be a futile exercise in chasing lies, and we know how well that works in politics. Why would Trump claim "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there." when it's such obvious nonsense? Because he knows his base believes it, and his propagandists will defend it, and his cultists are insulated to ignore that it's a lie.
These aren't especially hard questions conceptually. The repeated Republican dishonesty about them, because the issues establish that the Russian disinformation operation idea is a reasonable suspicion, is very telling.
Trump is not a politician or a steward of the United States. He is someone who wants the best deal for his interests. Maybe there is a short term benefit to the U.S. But as you mention, the longer term effects could be devastating. People who don't study history can't conceive of a United States that might be weak or in need of allies. Skilled negotiation and the “art of the deal” are very different.
Well put and beautifully written.
On the matter of trust, it bears noting that Trudeau lost Trump's trust a long time ago by saying different things to his face and behind his back. Remember when Trump called him "two faced"? Remember when Trudeau was caught on camera gossiping about Trump at a drinks party with other G7 leaders? Trudeau was still pretending to be Trump's friend and ally when he jetted off to Mar-a-Lago in December to supplicated for favours; but then immediately turned around and trash-talked Trump when he wanted to burnish his woke credentials - chastizing the American voters for once again declining to elect a woman as president. It probably wasn't a smart move for Liberals to ridicule their political rivals as "Maple MAGA" for four years while Trump was mounting his comeback, either. You don't build trust that way.
Oh the Politics of the last 80 years …
When a publicly traded company is mismanaged, its stock falls in value. This signals to corporate raiders an opportunity to buy up the shares on the cheap, take control of management, and reorganize the company to return it to profitability. The existence of corporate raiders keeps everyone on their toes; the threat of takeover benefits everyone in the system except the lazy or incompetent managers who drove the company down in the first place.
Sometimes, the managers of a failing company wake up to the threat of a corporate raider early enough to mount a defense. The defense typically consists in implementing the very corporate reorganization that the raider was planning to do. This is all that is happening to Canada now.
Trump is a political raider. He sees properties in his neighbourhood floundering, and is threatening to take them over and make them great again. Some members of the management of "Team Canada" have suddenly woken up from their ideological slumbers and are starting to discuss options to fix some things that have been problematic for generations: reducing interprovincial trade barriers, reducing immigration, canceling the self-destructive carbon tax, beefing up our military and border security, building pipelines east west and north, scrapping the regulatory regimes that throttle economic activity and investment in Canada, and maybe even getting rid of our agricultural marketing boards which have been an irritant in every trade negotiation we have tried to negotiate this century.
Other members of "Team Canada" management - the ones who most enthusiastically pushed us into this situation in the first place - are swallowing the poison pill, trying to make Canada an unattractive option for a takeover by blowing everything up in an all-out war of attrition. It remains to be seen whether Canada can select a new management in time to save itself, or whether some divisions of Canada Corp will take the buy-out.
Trump didn't get elected because of anything to do with Canada. Trump got elected because of the disastrous policies of the "Biden" administration, along with Democrat state and municipal ruination. From uncontrolled migration to DEI idiocy everywhere to weaponizing state agencies against political enemies... the rot runs deep and wide. Half of the American people had had enough, and quite deliberately elected a bull in the china shop to decisively end it. Trump's abrasive bulling and determination are not bugs, they are features of his administration.
Likewise, Canada isn't in dire straits because of anything Trump has done; we have been doing it to ourselves for generations, and this is merely the endgame playing itself out. I have been saying since the 1980s that Canada's two greatest virtues are envy and moral preening. Nobody wants to listen to sanctimonious pricks like Trudeau, who has ruined his own country in a dozen different dimensions at once. Even the massively delusional Canadian electorate has finally had enough of that.
Trump got elected twice because there was no competition.
There was indeed "competition" in both American elections. The competition was so good, Trudeau says he would have voted for the competition, against Trump, in both elections. And polls show that the competition would have been elected by a landslide among the Canadian voters both times, too. Which only goes to illustrate how idiotic Canadian voters are, and why Canada has been in a steep decline this century.
Americans voted for what was on the menu: two Zionist shit sandwiches.
Is that the best they could come up with?
Oh, so you support the genocidal death cult, now, too, do you, Bob? I should have guessed. You are indeed the worst of the worst representative of Canadian envy and moral preening.
The genocidal Zionist death cult is an American problem, but no, I don't support them. If Trump is worried about national security threats, they are one of them.
What world are we stumbling into?
The end of modernity.
Brilliant! Thank you Dan.
Thanks for writing this.