I agree. At the same time, our response should be based on fostering our own economic strengths and we need to take a new look at Macdonald’s National Policy. Starting with getting rid of barriers to interprovincial trade. I’m sure there’s no one on the national scene with the skill or interest to do that.
Canadian politicians are self-serving, parochial imbeciles. Don't expect any movement on interprovincial trade even though it is clearly in our own best interests. Cultivating a protected voter base is more important. That's why we are a country of cartels: banking cartels, transportation cartels, education and health-care cartels, labour cartels, telecom cartels, dairy and poultry cartels, grocery-retailing cartels... Dan is right that any talk about justice, or freedom, or fairness - let alone efficiency and productivity - is pointless in a conversation with Canadian politicians. It is ALL about getting votes.
I reply mostly with what you say. However, I have one disagreement in that it is in our own national interest to address.
When Trump talks about it, smart people he trusts probably tell him the problem with drugs, money laundering and organized crime in Canada, but because he's an idiot, he can't articulate it any better than "drugs and criminals are flowing across our border".
As articulated in the CBC and the Globe and Mail recently, Trump allies in the law enforcement and national security sphere have been warning about deep issues in Canada with money laundering, organized crime and immigration that are causing problems south of the border. But they shouldn't be equated with the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants at the US/Mexican border. Everyone in this country is wrapped around the axle about increasing border patrols, drones and helicopters but our issues are more systemic. Here are a couple of articles published recently that articulate this better.
- re-establish the Ports Police to clamp down on the fentanyl pre-cursors coming into the country
- properly resource the police, Crown prosecution service, and the courts to deal with complex organized crime and money laundering cases.
- Introduce anti-racketeering legislation like "RICO" statutes to effectively go after organized crime
-fix our intelligence-to-evidence problem we have in this country.
-reform our court system to deal with the disclosure requirements and extremely short time limits police the Crown have to bring cases to trial.
- paying more attention to who is getting into our country. According to a whistleblower with CBSA, about 300,000 blank passports were stolen and the senior management of CBSA chose to cover it up instead of report it.
In short, it is in our interest to address "the border". Just not in the way Trump and our politicians are bloviating about.
Otherwise, I agree. Even though Canada's sole national interest is to maintain good relations with our American neighbours, we have to make them bleed if they want to bring these tarrifs in.
This is all fine. My reference to the southern border was simply to give a sense of proportion. I didn't want to get sidetracked into details. In any event, it's all beside the point: Canadian and American officials talk about exactly these sorts of issues, and how to better cooperate for effect, constantly. If one party is unhappy with what the other is doing, they can escalate and get politicians to speak and urge change. Which almost invariably is enough. And if that doesn't work, it can be escalated higher -- with a call from one head of government to the other being the highest level. This is how we've cooperated for the better part of a century and it works just fine. There's simply zero need to skip all this and go straight to "do what we want (unspecified) or we'll launch nukes," which is what Trump effectively did.
Dan, you completely miss the simple point: Trump is trying to force Canada to do what is in our own interest, anyway. Why be ODD about it?
Same as when Trump tried to convince Europe (in particular Germany) when he was the 45th president not to become dependent on Russian oil. And he was ignored because "everybody knows" that whatever Trump says, do the opposite.
I'm not ignoring, I'm responding. Canadian politicians have refused to do what is in Canada's own interests for decades. For decades we have failed to meet out NATO commitments; for decades we have sheltered protected sectors with tariffs and trade barriers. For decades we have allowed our border and security agencies to atrophy. It has resulted in a crisis, within Canada, that threatens to spill over even more into America. We are a bad neighour, so Trump wants to build strong fences...
Picking up the phone and asking Canada to clean up our act hasn't worked, Dan. Trump rightly understands that it will take strong measures to make Trudeau pay attention. Now you stop ignoring my points and respond with facts and logic instead of dismissive sniping - if you want to be taken seriously.
No, you're repeating what you've already said and ignoring Dan's response. It's obvious to everyone.
Can you conceive of any other ways Trump could have handled both situations? Perhaps you can reflect on how Biden shored up NATO when he knew Russia was going to invade. He began the diplomatic process a year in advance. I bet you didn't even know that. It was quiet and highly effective.
In reviewing earlier writings over Christmas I came upon this piece I obviously missed earlier. It falls into the “the only thing Trump and his ilk understand is strength” camp and I agree. We are not as weak as Melos and are in little danger of being slaughtered and enslaved; however, it would put us on a virtual “war” footing as citizens would have to be prepared to forego some of their entitlements. Right now most of the opposition to PP is “he will cut our benefits”, some am not sure the citizenry would fall easily into line. Giving him what he wants now will just bring more demands which would in fact enslave us to his future whims and fantasies. He needs to be shown we matter to the well being of the US of A. There was a time at an Army base in Canada that the soldiers were being treated as third class citizens by the locals. On one payday the base paid all soldiers in $2 bills. The economy of the town was not damaged as it could have been by making it off limits, but the town soon realized just how much it depended on the base. That is what we need to do to Trump. As Dan states, Americans and a Canadians cooperate across the border every day to an extent most Canadians and certainly Trump are unaware of. The organizations involved just need to be given the resources, clear direction and support and many of the problems will diminish (they will never disappear).
I don't disagree with any of that, all of which has been neglected for decades. It all comes back to the simple fact that all it takes is a congenial phone call, rather than threats and a show of force.
The government has already made many congenial phone calls. The prime minister even made a congenial visit to Trump's estate. Trump responded with public to all these congeniality with public ridicule and humiliation.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to be have a hunch: Of the countless individuals and organizations Donald Trump screwed over in his long career, how many made "congenial phone calls" which Trump responded to by ratcheting up his ruthless behaviour? My guess is all of them.
Incidentally, I very much hope to be proven wrong about all this.
It’s been said before but it’s worth noting one reason why Trump is solidly wedded to a zero sum outlook. The sector he operated in, commercial New York City real estate, is pretty much a zero-sum game. New supply is slow to come by and the markets are tight. The only arbitrage is from strong arming others at the negotiating table.
To be sure it’s just one factor in combination with his personality and mindset. Another hypothetical leader could have expanded their understanding of economic systems. Or could have noticed that one of his own closest allies built new companies and new wealth in untapped markets.
But Trump’s not that leader by a long shot. Like you wrote, there’s nothing to be gained hoping he’ll somehow smack his forehead and realize the mutual benefits of trade.
I agree. But Canada has to convince Francois Legault to agree. Cut off power to the New England states and the US will understand that Canada is not impotent.
Thanks for articulating this. I have little hope that we will have a national response from our present leadership. I have little faith that the guy salivating in the wings has the ability to build a national response as it might actually require more than a 3 syllable slogan.
Touche. Grant, my complaint is I see no policy from the federal Conservatives. However I am open to hearing and discussing it. My experience in Alberta with the UCP is that much of the legislation being passed was not made public so I am disinclined to be trusting.
NEVER trust a politician, Gail. You will surely be disappointed.
In our Westminster parliamentary system, the Loyal Opposition does not propose policy; it opposes the government's policies in typical adversarial style. This is supposed to improve legislation in the same way that an adversarial legal system is supposed to improve justice.
Wait until the election campaign kicks off. That's when you have a right to know what the CPC has in its plans. Disguising full intentions has become standard in Canadian politics, though. Trudeau never campaigned on ramping up the carbon tax four-fold, either. Notley didn't campaign on unionizing family farms...
"That's when you have a right to know what the CPC has in its plans."
How odd that you'd say we don't have a right to know now. Trudeau was quite clear about implementing a carbon tax, BTW, so stop lying. He even gave premiers a way out of paying it but CONs declined the offer, and now they're whining about it. And making up lies like saying its responsible for inflation.
Lyle, you confess that you don't know how politics works without admitting it. A criminal defense attorney does not have to present a case until after the prosecutor closes his case. The adversarial parliamentary system works the same way.
Trudeau refused to say what his plans were for the carbon tax beyond the 2021 election. His previous environment minister said there were no plans to increase it. It is quite clear that they were hiding this from the voters.
The Federal Carbon Tax is part of the Government of Canada’s multi-year carbon pricing system.
As a registered distributor, TransGas collects the required amount each month and remits the charges to the federal government. The carbon charge on natural gas is set by the Government of Canada at the following rates and effective dates:
April 1, 2019: $39.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.00/GJ)
April 1, 2020: $58.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.50/GJ)
April 1, 2021: $78.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.00/GJ)
April 1, 2022: $97.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.50/GJ)
April 1, 2023: $123.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $3.25/GJ)
April 1, 2024: $152.50 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.00/GJ)
April 1, 2025: $181.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.75/GJ)
April 1, 2026: $209.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $5.50/GJ)
April 1, 2027: $238.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $6.25/GJ)
April 1, 2028: $266.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $7.25/GJ)
April 1, 2029: $295.40 per 10³m³ (approximately $8.00/GJ)…”
“ The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) was formally passed into law in the fall of 2018, setting a baseline carbon price at $20 per tonne of CO2e in 2019, rising $10 per year to $50 per tonne of CO2e in 2022.”
Anyway, glad to see you admit Pee Pee gas no intention of telling Canadians what he plans to do.
of all I have read about and observed of Trump there are no redeeming aspects related to his behaviour and mindset. Contempt is not enough; I reserve it for his supporters. What really hurts the most is his contempt for any decent humanity and his admiration of despots. The misuse of cooperating lawyers in order to have people around him grovel for snacks while he is withholding dinner is only a tiny spark in his ‘despicability’.
Dan, the Canada-USA relationship is nothing like the Athenian-Melesian situation. Literally *nothing* that Trump is demanding of Canada is contrary to Canada's own interests. If Trump wins, he would be Canada's benefactor and liberator - not our colonial master.
1. The border: Try as you might to minimize the problems at Canada's border by comparing it to the Mexican border, you are a fool if you think that the problem won't fully shift to Canada's border the minute the Americans get control of their southern border. The cartels and illegals are evil, Dan; they aren't stupid. It is in Canada's own interest to: (i) fix our immigration & refugee systems so that terrorists can't enter Canada, and then cross a largely undefended border to bomb LAX or mass-murder the residents of NYC; and (ii) properly inspect shipments coming and going from Canada for narcotic drugs, illegal guns, sex trafficking, etc. Why are Canadians so ODD about that?
2. National defense: It is ironic that you, Dan, who love to tout the advantages of international agreements and cooperation, should think Trump is a "bully" for asking Canada (and other allies) to pull their own weight when it comes to national defense. We promised our NATO allies that we would spend 2% of GDP on national defense, but have not met that commitment for a single year of NATO's existence. Why should America pay the freight on defense, if we don't want to become the 51st state?
3. Trade: Trump's mercantilism is of course nonsense, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have legitimate complaints. (i) Canada allows China to dump its steel and aluminum in Canada (and Mexico), giving our manufacturers a competitive advantage over Americans who have to pay domestic prices. There are strategic and military reasons America does not want to hollow out its steel and aluminum sector (and why China wants to decimate it by subsidizing exports). (ii)(a) Canada's imbecilic agricultural marketing boards are not an example of the mutually advantageous trade you pretend to support, Dan. They practically prevent international trade, and double the grocery prices of Canadians. (b) Canada auctions off timber-harvesting rights on Crown land to private companies, excluding American bidders. That reduces the revenues generated to the Canadian treasury while giving Canadian foresters a competitive advantage over American foresters who have to buy the forests they harvest on the open real estate market. That's not free trade, either.
As for the abject imbecility of Doug Ford and the rest of the Laurentian elites thinking we can "make America bleed" with retaliatory trade measures: (1) Alberta's oil goes to US refineries before being sent back to Ontario via the Line 5 pipeline, which traverses Michigan. Just wait until Trump cuts off Ontario's energy supply in retaliation! Play silly games, win silly prizes. FAFO. (2) Why don't the Laurentian bastards consider cutting off the electrical supply to the eastern seaboard that comes from Quebec? Surely that would "make America bleed" more than cutting off Alberta's oil, which can be replaced on the world market. Oh, I know why: that would hurt the eastern Canada voting block! (3) The US economy is more than 10 times as big as Canada's, and vastly more flexible and adaptable. Our retaliatory measures will not make America bleed, and will only be felt for a short while. But the damage to ourselves will be devastating and long term. (Bear in mind that Canada's richest province is poorer than America's poorest state.)
Dan, you may be an estimable historian, but an economist and a politician and a strong thinker you certainly are not. You are supporting a moronic, catastrophic response to a golden opportunity that is being handed to Canadian politicians to do what is in Canada's own interests. Danielle Smith, and to a lesser extent Scott Moe, are the only ones on "Team Canada" with at least two braincells to rub together. Canadians are too smug, self-righteous, self-important, miseducated, and ODD to be taken seriously. We are contemptible, whining, preening, idiots. Maybe that's why Trump holds us in contempt?
Your facts are wrong. Trump tied the tariffs to the border and fentanyl. That's all.
And here is what I wrote about this facts, which you ignored: "And as the entire modern history of the US/Canada relationship shows, if the US wants cooperation on specific policies it has only to ask. So why threaten to push Canada off a cliff to get what the US could get with a phone call and a few quiet meetings? Because the demands are only a pretext. Even if Canada could satisfy them to Trump’s liking, which is unlikely, he will find others."
That's the crux. Why did he immediately go to a five-alarm threat -- we're talking about the collapse of our economy here -- without even asking America's old friend, neighbour, and ally to work on his concerns?
I have an answer for that question. You may find it unconvincing. Fine. But what's your answer for that question? If you don't have one, I would suggest you dial down the bluster and think a little more carefully.
I'm not wrong, Dan, even if your single point (in response to my many points) were correct. But even that point is misjudged. Trump also said many times that America is "subsidizing" Canada to the tune of $100billion per year. Which is nonsense, of course; but it indicates that the *other* trade issues I noted are still sticking in his craw from the last round of negotiations. Trump's complaints with Canada are multi-layered and fully justified.
Do not let history be your guide here, Dan. Canada used to be governed by pragmatic leaders, with whom American presidents could make a reasonable ask and get a reasonable response. For the past 9 years, Canada has been governed by a childish, petulant, narcissistic, rabidly ideological, self-important imbecile who is grotesquely and proudly ignorant of economics. ("Budgets balance themselves." "You will have to forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy.")
To understand the scale of Trudeau's delusional grandiosity, recall that the guy actually believed he could trot off to China and negotiate a trade deal that included several chapters of woke nonsense! He kicked off negotiations on a new NAFTA agreement with Trump by proposing to include new chapters of woke and left-wing ideology. We are lead by someone who gossips and snipes behind Trump's back, and is known for being "two faced" in his dealings with Trump. We have a leader who is immensely unpopular, but is so delusional he refuses to step aside and let a woman lead (while telling Americans that's what they should have done). There's no reasoning with this guy; there's no reasoning with your man in Ottawa, Dan.
Trump knows exactly who he is dealing with. He knows that a five-alarm threat was the only thing that might wake Trudeau up from his delusional slumbers. As we now see, even that hasn't worked; Trudeau continues to insult Trump on the world stage. Dan, in case you hadn't noticed, Trump isn't playing around with the swamp creatures this time around, domestic or international. Playing nice is a losing strategy with the stubborn female-penis-believing ideologues that have taken over so much of western politics in the past 10 years. Trump has been victimized by a politicized DoJ and a vindictive Congress for 10 years; he's had enough. He has only one term left, and he wants results fast. Not vague, unenforceable promises; concrete action. I don't blame him; I applaud him - as does anyone with a modicum of gravitas.
Interestingly, the USMCA trade agreement was signed 30 November 2018, and is up for review after six years. This means that Trump might not be bound by it when he takes office, or as shortly thereafter as he can cancel it.
I haven't read the trade agreement, but I would wager that imposing tariffs is not a remedy available for a trade imbalance, whereas tariffs might be a remedy for border security concerns. This might be why Trump has tied the tariffs to border security, but responds with the "$100billion subsidy, it isn't fair" remark when asked to comment on Doug Ford's threat to cut off energy. As I have told you before, Dan, Trump is wily and rarely talks syllogistically. You have to read between the lines to figure him out. Since you lack the patience or skill to do that, you will continue to get him wrong. Don't be one of those nutbags who think Trump was serious about annexing Canada (and thereby handing the Electoral College over to the Democrats for the foreseeable future).
Grant and Dan, please stop this degenerating exchange from destroying what was otherwise an interesting (and informative) discussion… we all acknowledge the garbage that comes from Trashcan Trump, but Grant has a few solid points he makes about our (Canada’s) lack of self defense against drugs and gangs and over reaching wokeism (is that a word? - never mind, you know what I mean). We should be locked and loaded against all incursions from outside, but let common sense prevail please. We are way too far left and will hopefully protect against going way too far right. Fix what’s broken. Don’t take a knife to a gun fight. Be cool.
The central thesis of your article is that Canada is in *exactly* the same situation with respect to Trump's tariff threats as the Melians were with respect to Athenian threats of colonial oppression - and that Canada should follow the Melians into oblivion by waging a trade war with Trump.
I argued that there is no parity between the cases: Trump is only asking Canada to do what is in our own interest anyway; "threats" are only needed because Canada's imbecilic politicians are wedded to moronic trade and national security policies. So Canadians should actually embrace the opportunity to be liberated from our error by Trump.
Your response is to concede that you were completely wrong in assimilating the two historical situations, but insist that you were not wrong to assimilate a different historical situation with the contemporary one. Now your argument is that Trump should have simply asked Canada nicely to do what is in our own interests, because we have had a wonderful cooperative relationship in the past.
My response to your diversionary argument is that it is also historically ill-informed. (i) Canadians have never been pressured by previous American presidents to deal with the specific problems that are vexing Trump now, and (ii) Trudeau is uniquely foolish among Canadian Prime Ministers, so asking nicely at long last isn't likely to have any effect.
It is not honest to accuse me of ignoring what you write, Dan. Throughout my comments, I have been responding *squarely* to what you have written. You have not replied at all to my unanswerable counter-arguments.
Yes, let me spend all day arguing with a man who would roll his eyes if I said the sky is blue. Tempting, but no. I've done that on several occasions with you and I've always regretted wasting my time. Want a taste of why? Your summary of my thesis is laughably wrong: I argue this isn't only about Canada, but about all those Trump has and will bully; I argue that his stated beefs with Canada are pretexts only; I argue that Canada is *different* than Melos in the critical sense that we can credibly threaten to inflict pain on the aggressor; I argue that the point of threatening to inflict that pain is not to "follow the Melians into oblivion" but to deter the aggressor so neither of us suffers. Now, why would I spend more time discussing this with someone who won't or can't state my clearly stated views correctly? Please note: rhetorical question. I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure you do, too.
Your "central thesis" is in fact as I described it; each of these other points you trot out is at best a peripheral claim to central thesis. Some are simply diversionary. Your central thesis is plainly unsound - foolish, even.
Moreover, I've corrected you on each and every one of these other peripheral points as well. Trotting them out is yet another dishonest response.
--Trump is equally right to "bully" other countries to clean up their act.
--You don't "argue" that Trump's beefs are a pretext; you unconvincingly assert that they are misdirected. And if they are a pretext, what is the subtext? What are the tariff threats *really* aimed at? Putin? Xi? Tehran?
--Canada is not different than Melos in the respect you claim. A full-scale trade war with Trump such as you advocate will be devastating for Canada, and the frictions caused are liable to lead to western or Quebec separation, or both. (Pay heed to Danielle Smith and Scott Moe when it comes to western alienation!)
--Canada IS different from Melos in the respect that I identified, however: Trump only wants what would be best for Canada; Athens did not for Melos.
--Nothing you have ever written about Trump suggests that you think he is easily deterred, especially not by the puny threats Canada is capable of marshalling.
Grant, it is spectacular, even by your standards, that you are telling the author of the essay he is all wrong not only about the substance of his argument but about *what he argued.* And you are doing this despite my arguments about what I argued (what an amazing phrase) being easily traceable to very clear statements in the essay, and yours being belied by those statements.
This is meta-level obstinacy and close-mindedness. A whole new dimension of pig-headedness. Well done.
However, I regret to note I swore a heartfelt oath to myself -- an oath, mind you -- to stop wasting my time conversing with zealots, maniacs, and monologuers. As you are the chief exemplar of the third category, I must, sadly, bid you adieu.
Still being evasive, still refusing to admit that your historical analogy is bogus, still making excuses for not responding to my numerous and overwhelming correct criticisms. You are a chief exemplar of a bad faith debater.
Amazing commentary but we are already grovelling at Trumps feet. It is too late none of our politicians of any stripe are prepared to risk the wrath of the masses pain from further increased costs.
We do not have the daring or ‘stupidy’ of the people of Melos. Principles anyway seem to be in short supply in these times.
Even leaders of our oil rich provinces seem to be ready to sell the soul and be first in line to do so.
It takes a while to accumulate enough brave warriors to band together to make a difference and life now is measured in soundbites not decades
I agree. At the same time, our response should be based on fostering our own economic strengths and we need to take a new look at Macdonald’s National Policy. Starting with getting rid of barriers to interprovincial trade. I’m sure there’s no one on the national scene with the skill or interest to do that.
Absolutely right. On both points.
I appreciate that, coming from one of the smartest people in the country.
Canadian politicians are self-serving, parochial imbeciles. Don't expect any movement on interprovincial trade even though it is clearly in our own best interests. Cultivating a protected voter base is more important. That's why we are a country of cartels: banking cartels, transportation cartels, education and health-care cartels, labour cartels, telecom cartels, dairy and poultry cartels, grocery-retailing cartels... Dan is right that any talk about justice, or freedom, or fairness - let alone efficiency and productivity - is pointless in a conversation with Canadian politicians. It is ALL about getting votes.
Pretty much nailed it, except Dan made the point that it's pointless to talk to Trump about justice, or freedom, or fairness.
(Yeah, I was being ironic.)
You would think a hockey loving country would understand the need for the tough guy
We don’t need Gretzky
We need Tie Domi
Trump is like Gary Suter and his cheap shot against Gretzky
It was open season on Suter after that
That’s who we are - make the fucker bleed
I reply mostly with what you say. However, I have one disagreement in that it is in our own national interest to address.
When Trump talks about it, smart people he trusts probably tell him the problem with drugs, money laundering and organized crime in Canada, but because he's an idiot, he can't articulate it any better than "drugs and criminals are flowing across our border".
As articulated in the CBC and the Globe and Mail recently, Trump allies in the law enforcement and national security sphere have been warning about deep issues in Canada with money laundering, organized crime and immigration that are causing problems south of the border. But they shouldn't be equated with the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants at the US/Mexican border. Everyone in this country is wrapped around the axle about increasing border patrols, drones and helicopters but our issues are more systemic. Here are a couple of articles published recently that articulate this better.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canada-border-trump-drug-crime/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-canada-fentanyl-organized-crime-1.7404130
Basically, we need to:
- re-establish the Ports Police to clamp down on the fentanyl pre-cursors coming into the country
- properly resource the police, Crown prosecution service, and the courts to deal with complex organized crime and money laundering cases.
- Introduce anti-racketeering legislation like "RICO" statutes to effectively go after organized crime
-fix our intelligence-to-evidence problem we have in this country.
-reform our court system to deal with the disclosure requirements and extremely short time limits police the Crown have to bring cases to trial.
- paying more attention to who is getting into our country. According to a whistleblower with CBSA, about 300,000 blank passports were stolen and the senior management of CBSA chose to cover it up instead of report it.
https://www.thebureau.news/p/whistleblower-alleges-systemic-cbsa
In short, it is in our interest to address "the border". Just not in the way Trump and our politicians are bloviating about.
Otherwise, I agree. Even though Canada's sole national interest is to maintain good relations with our American neighbours, we have to make them bleed if they want to bring these tarrifs in.
This is all fine. My reference to the southern border was simply to give a sense of proportion. I didn't want to get sidetracked into details. In any event, it's all beside the point: Canadian and American officials talk about exactly these sorts of issues, and how to better cooperate for effect, constantly. If one party is unhappy with what the other is doing, they can escalate and get politicians to speak and urge change. Which almost invariably is enough. And if that doesn't work, it can be escalated higher -- with a call from one head of government to the other being the highest level. This is how we've cooperated for the better part of a century and it works just fine. There's simply zero need to skip all this and go straight to "do what we want (unspecified) or we'll launch nukes," which is what Trump effectively did.
Dan, you completely miss the simple point: Trump is trying to force Canada to do what is in our own interest, anyway. Why be ODD about it?
Same as when Trump tried to convince Europe (in particular Germany) when he was the 45th president not to become dependent on Russian oil. And he was ignored because "everybody knows" that whatever Trump says, do the opposite.
TDS is a dangerous disease.
If you’re going to simply ignore what I write, I’ll reciprocate.
I'm not ignoring, I'm responding. Canadian politicians have refused to do what is in Canada's own interests for decades. For decades we have failed to meet out NATO commitments; for decades we have sheltered protected sectors with tariffs and trade barriers. For decades we have allowed our border and security agencies to atrophy. It has resulted in a crisis, within Canada, that threatens to spill over even more into America. We are a bad neighour, so Trump wants to build strong fences...
Picking up the phone and asking Canada to clean up our act hasn't worked, Dan. Trump rightly understands that it will take strong measures to make Trudeau pay attention. Now you stop ignoring my points and respond with facts and logic instead of dismissive sniping - if you want to be taken seriously.
No, you're repeating what you've already said and ignoring Dan's response. It's obvious to everyone.
Can you conceive of any other ways Trump could have handled both situations? Perhaps you can reflect on how Biden shored up NATO when he knew Russia was going to invade. He began the diplomatic process a year in advance. I bet you didn't even know that. It was quiet and highly effective.
Lyle, you are an NPC.
In reviewing earlier writings over Christmas I came upon this piece I obviously missed earlier. It falls into the “the only thing Trump and his ilk understand is strength” camp and I agree. We are not as weak as Melos and are in little danger of being slaughtered and enslaved; however, it would put us on a virtual “war” footing as citizens would have to be prepared to forego some of their entitlements. Right now most of the opposition to PP is “he will cut our benefits”, some am not sure the citizenry would fall easily into line. Giving him what he wants now will just bring more demands which would in fact enslave us to his future whims and fantasies. He needs to be shown we matter to the well being of the US of A. There was a time at an Army base in Canada that the soldiers were being treated as third class citizens by the locals. On one payday the base paid all soldiers in $2 bills. The economy of the town was not damaged as it could have been by making it off limits, but the town soon realized just how much it depended on the base. That is what we need to do to Trump. As Dan states, Americans and a Canadians cooperate across the border every day to an extent most Canadians and certainly Trump are unaware of. The organizations involved just need to be given the resources, clear direction and support and many of the problems will diminish (they will never disappear).
I don't disagree with any of that, all of which has been neglected for decades. It all comes back to the simple fact that all it takes is a congenial phone call, rather than threats and a show of force.
The government has already made many congenial phone calls. The prime minister even made a congenial visit to Trump's estate. Trump responded with public to all these congeniality with public ridicule and humiliation.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to be have a hunch: Of the countless individuals and organizations Donald Trump screwed over in his long career, how many made "congenial phone calls" which Trump responded to by ratcheting up his ruthless behaviour? My guess is all of them.
Incidentally, I very much hope to be proven wrong about all this.
Our governments have, and yes, true to character, Trump reciprocated with more bullying.
Is a disgusting that so many Canadians side with that.
Well put. This just might be the best take on Trump I've read.
It’s been said before but it’s worth noting one reason why Trump is solidly wedded to a zero sum outlook. The sector he operated in, commercial New York City real estate, is pretty much a zero-sum game. New supply is slow to come by and the markets are tight. The only arbitrage is from strong arming others at the negotiating table.
To be sure it’s just one factor in combination with his personality and mindset. Another hypothetical leader could have expanded their understanding of economic systems. Or could have noticed that one of his own closest allies built new companies and new wealth in untapped markets.
But Trump’s not that leader by a long shot. Like you wrote, there’s nothing to be gained hoping he’ll somehow smack his forehead and realize the mutual benefits of trade.
Very true, and an important point. (An aside: I’m delighted to see you here! Welcome!)
I agree. But Canada has to convince Francois Legault to agree. Cut off power to the New England states and the US will understand that Canada is not impotent.
Thanks for articulating this. I have little hope that we will have a national response from our present leadership. I have little faith that the guy salivating in the wings has the ability to build a national response as it might actually require more than a 3 syllable slogan.
You mean like these three-word slogans, Gail?
Because it's 2015
Budgets balance themselves
Build back better
Transparency by default
Conservatives are fascists
Conservatives are misogynistic
Conservatives are homophobic
Conservatives are Islamophobic
Slogans like that, Gail?
Touche. Grant, my complaint is I see no policy from the federal Conservatives. However I am open to hearing and discussing it. My experience in Alberta with the UCP is that much of the legislation being passed was not made public so I am disinclined to be trusting.
You will have your say when the campaign starts “officially”.
Hopefully you will be surprised. 🙏
NEVER trust a politician, Gail. You will surely be disappointed.
In our Westminster parliamentary system, the Loyal Opposition does not propose policy; it opposes the government's policies in typical adversarial style. This is supposed to improve legislation in the same way that an adversarial legal system is supposed to improve justice.
Wait until the election campaign kicks off. That's when you have a right to know what the CPC has in its plans. Disguising full intentions has become standard in Canadian politics, though. Trudeau never campaigned on ramping up the carbon tax four-fold, either. Notley didn't campaign on unionizing family farms...
"That's when you have a right to know what the CPC has in its plans."
How odd that you'd say we don't have a right to know now. Trudeau was quite clear about implementing a carbon tax, BTW, so stop lying. He even gave premiers a way out of paying it but CONs declined the offer, and now they're whining about it. And making up lies like saying its responsible for inflation.
Lyle, you confess that you don't know how politics works without admitting it. A criminal defense attorney does not have to present a case until after the prosecutor closes his case. The adversarial parliamentary system works the same way.
Trudeau refused to say what his plans were for the carbon tax beyond the 2021 election. His previous environment minister said there were no plans to increase it. It is quite clear that they were hiding this from the voters.
“Federal Carbon Tax
The Federal Carbon Tax is part of the Government of Canada’s multi-year carbon pricing system.
As a registered distributor, TransGas collects the required amount each month and remits the charges to the federal government. The carbon charge on natural gas is set by the Government of Canada at the following rates and effective dates:
April 1, 2019: $39.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.00/GJ)
April 1, 2020: $58.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $1.50/GJ)
April 1, 2021: $78.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.00/GJ)
April 1, 2022: $97.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $2.50/GJ)
April 1, 2023: $123.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $3.25/GJ)
April 1, 2024: $152.50 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.00/GJ)
April 1, 2025: $181.10 per 10³m³ (approximately $4.75/GJ)
April 1, 2026: $209.70 per 10³m³ (approximately $5.50/GJ)
April 1, 2027: $238.30 per 10³m³ (approximately $6.25/GJ)
April 1, 2028: $266.90 per 10³m³ (approximately $7.25/GJ)
April 1, 2029: $295.40 per 10³m³ (approximately $8.00/GJ)…”
“ The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) was formally passed into law in the fall of 2018, setting a baseline carbon price at $20 per tonne of CO2e in 2019, rising $10 per year to $50 per tonne of CO2e in 2022.”
Anyway, glad to see you admit Pee Pee gas no intention of telling Canadians what he plans to do.
No, she means "axe the ax", "build the homes" "fix the budget", etc, whjile he rolls over and plays dead in front of Trump.
of all I have read about and observed of Trump there are no redeeming aspects related to his behaviour and mindset. Contempt is not enough; I reserve it for his supporters. What really hurts the most is his contempt for any decent humanity and his admiration of despots. The misuse of cooperating lawyers in order to have people around him grovel for snacks while he is withholding dinner is only a tiny spark in his ‘despicability’.
Face it Canada is screwed. It is resembling a failed State more and more each day.
Alberta: we going to secure our border and work towards strengthening our relationship and economic conditions with the US.
Ontario and the Federal Government: We going to start a trade war and not worry about being a crime infested drug hub with open borders.
British Columbia: we are on vacation.
Dan, the Canada-USA relationship is nothing like the Athenian-Melesian situation. Literally *nothing* that Trump is demanding of Canada is contrary to Canada's own interests. If Trump wins, he would be Canada's benefactor and liberator - not our colonial master.
1. The border: Try as you might to minimize the problems at Canada's border by comparing it to the Mexican border, you are a fool if you think that the problem won't fully shift to Canada's border the minute the Americans get control of their southern border. The cartels and illegals are evil, Dan; they aren't stupid. It is in Canada's own interest to: (i) fix our immigration & refugee systems so that terrorists can't enter Canada, and then cross a largely undefended border to bomb LAX or mass-murder the residents of NYC; and (ii) properly inspect shipments coming and going from Canada for narcotic drugs, illegal guns, sex trafficking, etc. Why are Canadians so ODD about that?
2. National defense: It is ironic that you, Dan, who love to tout the advantages of international agreements and cooperation, should think Trump is a "bully" for asking Canada (and other allies) to pull their own weight when it comes to national defense. We promised our NATO allies that we would spend 2% of GDP on national defense, but have not met that commitment for a single year of NATO's existence. Why should America pay the freight on defense, if we don't want to become the 51st state?
3. Trade: Trump's mercantilism is of course nonsense, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have legitimate complaints. (i) Canada allows China to dump its steel and aluminum in Canada (and Mexico), giving our manufacturers a competitive advantage over Americans who have to pay domestic prices. There are strategic and military reasons America does not want to hollow out its steel and aluminum sector (and why China wants to decimate it by subsidizing exports). (ii)(a) Canada's imbecilic agricultural marketing boards are not an example of the mutually advantageous trade you pretend to support, Dan. They practically prevent international trade, and double the grocery prices of Canadians. (b) Canada auctions off timber-harvesting rights on Crown land to private companies, excluding American bidders. That reduces the revenues generated to the Canadian treasury while giving Canadian foresters a competitive advantage over American foresters who have to buy the forests they harvest on the open real estate market. That's not free trade, either.
As for the abject imbecility of Doug Ford and the rest of the Laurentian elites thinking we can "make America bleed" with retaliatory trade measures: (1) Alberta's oil goes to US refineries before being sent back to Ontario via the Line 5 pipeline, which traverses Michigan. Just wait until Trump cuts off Ontario's energy supply in retaliation! Play silly games, win silly prizes. FAFO. (2) Why don't the Laurentian bastards consider cutting off the electrical supply to the eastern seaboard that comes from Quebec? Surely that would "make America bleed" more than cutting off Alberta's oil, which can be replaced on the world market. Oh, I know why: that would hurt the eastern Canada voting block! (3) The US economy is more than 10 times as big as Canada's, and vastly more flexible and adaptable. Our retaliatory measures will not make America bleed, and will only be felt for a short while. But the damage to ourselves will be devastating and long term. (Bear in mind that Canada's richest province is poorer than America's poorest state.)
Dan, you may be an estimable historian, but an economist and a politician and a strong thinker you certainly are not. You are supporting a moronic, catastrophic response to a golden opportunity that is being handed to Canadian politicians to do what is in Canada's own interests. Danielle Smith, and to a lesser extent Scott Moe, are the only ones on "Team Canada" with at least two braincells to rub together. Canadians are too smug, self-righteous, self-important, miseducated, and ODD to be taken seriously. We are contemptible, whining, preening, idiots. Maybe that's why Trump holds us in contempt?
Your facts are wrong. Trump tied the tariffs to the border and fentanyl. That's all.
And here is what I wrote about this facts, which you ignored: "And as the entire modern history of the US/Canada relationship shows, if the US wants cooperation on specific policies it has only to ask. So why threaten to push Canada off a cliff to get what the US could get with a phone call and a few quiet meetings? Because the demands are only a pretext. Even if Canada could satisfy them to Trump’s liking, which is unlikely, he will find others."
That's the crux. Why did he immediately go to a five-alarm threat -- we're talking about the collapse of our economy here -- without even asking America's old friend, neighbour, and ally to work on his concerns?
I have an answer for that question. You may find it unconvincing. Fine. But what's your answer for that question? If you don't have one, I would suggest you dial down the bluster and think a little more carefully.
I'm not wrong, Dan, even if your single point (in response to my many points) were correct. But even that point is misjudged. Trump also said many times that America is "subsidizing" Canada to the tune of $100billion per year. Which is nonsense, of course; but it indicates that the *other* trade issues I noted are still sticking in his craw from the last round of negotiations. Trump's complaints with Canada are multi-layered and fully justified.
Do not let history be your guide here, Dan. Canada used to be governed by pragmatic leaders, with whom American presidents could make a reasonable ask and get a reasonable response. For the past 9 years, Canada has been governed by a childish, petulant, narcissistic, rabidly ideological, self-important imbecile who is grotesquely and proudly ignorant of economics. ("Budgets balance themselves." "You will have to forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy.")
To understand the scale of Trudeau's delusional grandiosity, recall that the guy actually believed he could trot off to China and negotiate a trade deal that included several chapters of woke nonsense! He kicked off negotiations on a new NAFTA agreement with Trump by proposing to include new chapters of woke and left-wing ideology. We are lead by someone who gossips and snipes behind Trump's back, and is known for being "two faced" in his dealings with Trump. We have a leader who is immensely unpopular, but is so delusional he refuses to step aside and let a woman lead (while telling Americans that's what they should have done). There's no reasoning with this guy; there's no reasoning with your man in Ottawa, Dan.
Trump knows exactly who he is dealing with. He knows that a five-alarm threat was the only thing that might wake Trudeau up from his delusional slumbers. As we now see, even that hasn't worked; Trudeau continues to insult Trump on the world stage. Dan, in case you hadn't noticed, Trump isn't playing around with the swamp creatures this time around, domestic or international. Playing nice is a losing strategy with the stubborn female-penis-believing ideologues that have taken over so much of western politics in the past 10 years. Trump has been victimized by a politicized DoJ and a vindictive Congress for 10 years; he's had enough. He has only one term left, and he wants results fast. Not vague, unenforceable promises; concrete action. I don't blame him; I applaud him - as does anyone with a modicum of gravitas.
Interestingly, the USMCA trade agreement was signed 30 November 2018, and is up for review after six years. This means that Trump might not be bound by it when he takes office, or as shortly thereafter as he can cancel it.
I haven't read the trade agreement, but I would wager that imposing tariffs is not a remedy available for a trade imbalance, whereas tariffs might be a remedy for border security concerns. This might be why Trump has tied the tariffs to border security, but responds with the "$100billion subsidy, it isn't fair" remark when asked to comment on Doug Ford's threat to cut off energy. As I have told you before, Dan, Trump is wily and rarely talks syllogistically. You have to read between the lines to figure him out. Since you lack the patience or skill to do that, you will continue to get him wrong. Don't be one of those nutbags who think Trump was serious about annexing Canada (and thereby handing the Electoral College over to the Democrats for the foreseeable future).
We’re done, friend. Go away.
Grant and Dan, please stop this degenerating exchange from destroying what was otherwise an interesting (and informative) discussion… we all acknowledge the garbage that comes from Trashcan Trump, but Grant has a few solid points he makes about our (Canada’s) lack of self defense against drugs and gangs and over reaching wokeism (is that a word? - never mind, you know what I mean). We should be locked and loaded against all incursions from outside, but let common sense prevail please. We are way too far left and will hopefully protect against going way too far right. Fix what’s broken. Don’t take a knife to a gun fight. Be cool.
Please.
The central thesis of your article is that Canada is in *exactly* the same situation with respect to Trump's tariff threats as the Melians were with respect to Athenian threats of colonial oppression - and that Canada should follow the Melians into oblivion by waging a trade war with Trump.
I argued that there is no parity between the cases: Trump is only asking Canada to do what is in our own interest anyway; "threats" are only needed because Canada's imbecilic politicians are wedded to moronic trade and national security policies. So Canadians should actually embrace the opportunity to be liberated from our error by Trump.
Your response is to concede that you were completely wrong in assimilating the two historical situations, but insist that you were not wrong to assimilate a different historical situation with the contemporary one. Now your argument is that Trump should have simply asked Canada nicely to do what is in our own interests, because we have had a wonderful cooperative relationship in the past.
My response to your diversionary argument is that it is also historically ill-informed. (i) Canadians have never been pressured by previous American presidents to deal with the specific problems that are vexing Trump now, and (ii) Trudeau is uniquely foolish among Canadian Prime Ministers, so asking nicely at long last isn't likely to have any effect.
It is not honest to accuse me of ignoring what you write, Dan. Throughout my comments, I have been responding *squarely* to what you have written. You have not replied at all to my unanswerable counter-arguments.
Yes, let me spend all day arguing with a man who would roll his eyes if I said the sky is blue. Tempting, but no. I've done that on several occasions with you and I've always regretted wasting my time. Want a taste of why? Your summary of my thesis is laughably wrong: I argue this isn't only about Canada, but about all those Trump has and will bully; I argue that his stated beefs with Canada are pretexts only; I argue that Canada is *different* than Melos in the critical sense that we can credibly threaten to inflict pain on the aggressor; I argue that the point of threatening to inflict that pain is not to "follow the Melians into oblivion" but to deter the aggressor so neither of us suffers. Now, why would I spend more time discussing this with someone who won't or can't state my clearly stated views correctly? Please note: rhetorical question. I have better things to do with my time. I'm sure you do, too.
Your "central thesis" is in fact as I described it; each of these other points you trot out is at best a peripheral claim to central thesis. Some are simply diversionary. Your central thesis is plainly unsound - foolish, even.
Moreover, I've corrected you on each and every one of these other peripheral points as well. Trotting them out is yet another dishonest response.
--Trump is equally right to "bully" other countries to clean up their act.
--You don't "argue" that Trump's beefs are a pretext; you unconvincingly assert that they are misdirected. And if they are a pretext, what is the subtext? What are the tariff threats *really* aimed at? Putin? Xi? Tehran?
--Canada is not different than Melos in the respect you claim. A full-scale trade war with Trump such as you advocate will be devastating for Canada, and the frictions caused are liable to lead to western or Quebec separation, or both. (Pay heed to Danielle Smith and Scott Moe when it comes to western alienation!)
--Canada IS different from Melos in the respect that I identified, however: Trump only wants what would be best for Canada; Athens did not for Melos.
--Nothing you have ever written about Trump suggests that you think he is easily deterred, especially not by the puny threats Canada is capable of marshalling.
Grant, it is spectacular, even by your standards, that you are telling the author of the essay he is all wrong not only about the substance of his argument but about *what he argued.* And you are doing this despite my arguments about what I argued (what an amazing phrase) being easily traceable to very clear statements in the essay, and yours being belied by those statements.
This is meta-level obstinacy and close-mindedness. A whole new dimension of pig-headedness. Well done.
However, I regret to note I swore a heartfelt oath to myself -- an oath, mind you -- to stop wasting my time conversing with zealots, maniacs, and monologuers. As you are the chief exemplar of the third category, I must, sadly, bid you adieu.
Still being evasive, still refusing to admit that your historical analogy is bogus, still making excuses for not responding to my numerous and overwhelming correct criticisms. You are a chief exemplar of a bad faith debater.
How to respond? Very politely.
“Dear mr Trump, Eat Shit and Die. We burned the White House once. Dont push your luck”
When dealing with psychopaths, like Trump and Putin, the pain is the point. That's how they express their power.
Sadly we have "leaders" in Canada who have pre-emptively given up, and handed their power to Trump.
TDS much?
I am glad we have a leader.
And who would that leader be? Surely you don't refer to the Face Painter.
Never let them see you sweat. Good luck
Amazing commentary but we are already grovelling at Trumps feet. It is too late none of our politicians of any stripe are prepared to risk the wrath of the masses pain from further increased costs.
We do not have the daring or ‘stupidy’ of the people of Melos. Principles anyway seem to be in short supply in these times.
Even leaders of our oil rich provinces seem to be ready to sell the soul and be first in line to do so.
It takes a while to accumulate enough brave warriors to band together to make a difference and life now is measured in soundbites not decades
I am a citizen of the US and could not agree more. “Canada is not Melos”. Stay strong and tough Canada!!