Dan, from the point of view of this American, in your capacity as a well-informed, fundamentally sympathetic, and appropriately critical Canadian observer, you continue to provide a valuable refreshing perspective on the madness convulsing your large neighbor to the south. Keep it up. We need it.
Reading your piece through the lens of my own experience (as a former US diplomat who served the final two decades of his career focused on South America), I recalled the IR theory of "Peripheral Realism" developed in that part of the world, mainly Argentina. Peripheral Realism describes the way in which relatively weak states on the "periphery" of global power navigate their constraints in pursuing their national interests, always mindful of the interests and whims and good or bad ideas of the behemoth to the north. For its part, Canada is cursed (or blessed, depending) by its location smack next to the center of global power: Ugly, in this case, America. Similarly constrained, but not peripheral. How to deal with that? Watching Justin Trudeau's news conference the other day, I couldn't imagine a more deft handling of that difficult spot.
As for the book you invoke, I had not thought about the Ugly American in these terms before, but it has been decades since I read it. It felt frankly OBE for different reasons. For one, Americans abroad in my experience had gotten a lot less ugly over time, sometimes behaving in model fashion relative to certain other (unnamed) nationalities. Also, ironically, considering the blind destructive unilateral approach of our current administration, the relative power of the US (by almost every measure) has declined. At the very least, we're entering a new era of geostrategic competition with a still rising PRC; more likely, centers of global power are multiplying and spreading outwards. US diplomats know they can no longer assume (if they ever foolishly did) that other countries will simply get in line. One reading of the Mad King Trump madness, in this context, is as the last bumptious gasp of an empire in decline, accelerated of course by the hubris and folly. Nice job.
We have also done a crappy job in explaining to the general public why foreign aid is provided. The idea that it is pure charity inevitably leads to many arguing that this charity ought to be first applied to those in need at home. Even making the soft power argument as you have done in this piece, Dan, clearly feels esoteric and unconvincing to many wondering how this benefits them in Arkansas or Saskatchewan. The same is true for diplomacy. There are some in our countries who will be supportive on a purely altruistic basis, feeling that it is their duty to assist others in need to the extent that they can. But they seem to be a minority, especially in hard economic times.
It is possible to take the next step to explain that existing in a world where there a fewer dictatorships, healthier and more prosperous countries in general benefits our countries as well. The current approach of the US government presents a good example as to how different the international order can be when based on trying to find win-win rather than “I win and you thus have to lose” scenarios. One might have thought that it was clear that helping prevent the spread of Ebola, HIV AIDS or COVID in other countries is to our benefit as well but we certainly have not been able to convince people on these principles.
Not to mention that in the past, some aid was tied, meaning that it consisted of goods or services purchased in the donor country and sent overseas. So it was good for American or Canadian farmers (maybe even a subsidy...?) if the government purchased their grain and sent it elsewhere.
The late Rush drummer Neil Peart wrote some books about his travels, including one describing a bicycle trip across Cameroon in the 1980s. At one point, the dusty two-lane road they were riding on in the middle of nowhere widened into a four-lane highway. A few kilometres later, it abruptly reverted to a country road. It sounded a lot like a weird aid project where a donor country wanted to give an engineering firm some work.
I wonder what term we could use to describe a habit of mounting one’s favourite soapbox no matter how tangentially linked that such comments may be to the main issue being discussed.
If you hadn't figured out yet by the summer of 2020 that it would be impossible to "prevent the spread of COVID," given its mode of transmission, you weren't paying attention. The world is FAR too interconnected to keep a respiratory virus isolated to one country - even as big a country as China. Plus, there are numerous animal reservoirs for the virus, so unless you were willing to decimate the deer population (for example), it would keep popping up until it mutated into a benign variant. Of course the "vaccines" were not sterilizing: they didn't prevent infection of transmission, either. There was never any good public-policy rationale for lockdowns based in epidemiology.
I have a question for you to ask yourself: why do you subscribe to this substack? I have read many of your comments across numerous posts, and the are often hostile and disrespectful. Reasonable people can disagree (even heatedly) about many things, but that is not what you seem to be doing. You attack, often ad hominem. It is not persuasive.
Albertans (I assume that's where you're from) have many reasons to be unhappy with the federal Liberals. It is foolish to assume that Alberta will just get on board with a Team Canada approach when the feds have been treating it as a punching bag for the last decade. Danielle Smith makes many solid arguments for pipelines and resource development. All true.
But attacking people in the comments is not cool, even if you disagree with them -- even if they are wrong. So I implore you: be nice! It works better.
Or consider going somewhere more congenial to your point of view.
I don't live in an ideological silo, and I don't get my jollies from preaching to the choir. I'm the opposite of most people, I guess, Greg. I deliberately seek out people I disagree with, because I want to spread the wisdom to those who need it. And who knows, maybe by disagreeing I might learn something, and hone my own arguments.
My "tone" is forthright, but hardly more abrasive than the tone I am responding to. If you can't stand the heat, maybe stay out of the kitchen?
A very thoughtful and useful piece. Strikes a chord with me as I read it when it first came out and felt rather hopeless reading it at first but there was hope there eventually. Dare we think that we are about to enter an era of changing institutions and new emerging moral and ethical standards as we pass through the “fourth turning”.
I recall my first visit to Europe in 1972. The war in Vietnam was still going strong and in many quarters it had a negative impact upon the reputation of Americans generally. It was very much a time when non Americans were referring to Americans as The Ugly Americans.
What stood out for me was the tactic of some young Americans who were travelling across Europe to fasten a Canadian sticker on their backpack to avoid a hostile reception from the locals.
As Canada is confronted with hostility from the U.S. President I hope that young Americans will choose to voice their concerns directly to their leaders rather than seeking the clock of anonymity with a Canadian sticker.
I'm currently overseas. For the first time in decades I've reverted to wearing a discrete Canadian flag pin, as much to identify myself as not being a citizen from that lawless country as it is pride of country.
If you think Canada is lawful, I have bad news for you. The reason Canada has become an international hub for organized crime, terrorists, and money laundering is that we have weak laws, weaker law-enforcement, and a catch-and-release criminal justice-system. (And I don't mean a criminal-justice system.)
If you think the "current" administration is lawless, I have bad news for you, Andrew. The American government has been lawless for generations. You realize that the Obama administration illegally spied holus bolus on its own citizens, and then lied to Congress about it, right? You realize that the Obama administration specifically targeted journalists, and the Trump campaign team in 2016, with illegal wiretaps, right? You realize that the CIA has labeled American parents who attend Catholic school board meetings "domestic terrorists," right? That they put Tusli Gabbord on a travel alert, right? That they have weaponized the DoJ against political opponents, right?... None of this is esoteric knowledge. If you are only waking up to allegations of "government lawlessness" because of orange-man-bad memes, you are part of the problem.
The “ugliest Americans” like Musk are destroying decades of progress. In the Trump/MAGA era the incurious like Musk thrive by spreading lies. The US might wake up one day from this to realize how much good will they have squandered around the world. It is no longer the beacon of freedom. It is the embodiment of small minded, incurious & self satisfied white men.
"The US might" is probably being generous. We almost certainly will. Despite my gripes about certain things, I always felt deeply fortunate about being an American. Now it is just humiliating.
This was a welcome read after intense tariff-watch reading of past days. Dan your grasp of history is a real help. Keep it up from wherever you may find yourself today. I have a small experience with USAID and Cuba from the 1990s. I wonder how the US will achieve its long standing objective in Cuba without USAID, and especially with Rubio running State why Cuba has not yet surfaced in the manifest destiny speak? Or maybe Trump will launch a 21st Bay of Pigs…?
Thankyou Dan for this clear, informed look at the whys and hows of foreign aid. The shuttering of USA foreign aid is part of a wider "ugliest American" campaign to paint all social safety nets, all benefits as rewards to the lazy and greedy. There is a persistent drumbeat of "the undeserved took your hard-earned money". In forgetting the value of aid establishing "soft power" internationally, let alone the humanitarian duty of helping the less fortunate, it is Americans who are child-like and willfully blind.
After my 20 years in the Navy I started college to become educated. I struggled and never finished. I remember a Algebra class I was working hard at and I sat next to a young man right out of HS who slept most of the class and got "A's" on all the tests. I was also taking a "World History" class. He inquired about the large textbook I was carrying. "World History" was my response and then he said that "only American History was worth studying" then he nodded off to sleep. That was 30 year ago wonder where he is today?
Thank you so much for this. I read the Ugly American decades ago (found it in my parents' bookshelves) and have wondered ever since why the phrase came to mean the opposite of the character.
dj trump made a point of declaring that the mountain named Denali in Alaska will revert to being called Mt McKinley again. He admires McKinley, who oversaw a healthy economy before the income tax was eventually introduced to pay for America's World War I engagement. McKinley presided during the first gilded age, a time of monopolies and wide economic inequality. These conditions have revisited America as the wealthiest 1% funnel away the vast majority of GDP growth in the economy, a process that accelerated under Ronald Reagan (Raygun?), a truly Ugly American president who played up America as "The Shining City on a Hill" when he wasn't trashing African-American women as 'Welfare Queens."
I'm persuaded by your argument about the ugliest Americans. Of a certain vintage, I appreciate your examination of the literary origins to the phrase in popular culture.
I grew up in a rural community in the Maritimes where the main livelihoods were forestry or agriculture. I remember, as an adolescent and teenager, that when it came to hearing on the news that Canada would be spending X amount of dollars on foreign aid, my mother would say “Why are we spending so much money on other countries? We should be helping the people here at home.”
I couldn’t ever think of a way to dispute her logic, and so I never spoke up, but I always felt queasy not saying anything; it just seemed like a kind thing to do—and why wouldn’t we do it as long as our government was also still taking care of our citizens at home?
That was a long time ago. After all these years your article helps me see that there’s as much pragmatism to soft power as there is morality.
Dan, from the point of view of this American, in your capacity as a well-informed, fundamentally sympathetic, and appropriately critical Canadian observer, you continue to provide a valuable refreshing perspective on the madness convulsing your large neighbor to the south. Keep it up. We need it.
Reading your piece through the lens of my own experience (as a former US diplomat who served the final two decades of his career focused on South America), I recalled the IR theory of "Peripheral Realism" developed in that part of the world, mainly Argentina. Peripheral Realism describes the way in which relatively weak states on the "periphery" of global power navigate their constraints in pursuing their national interests, always mindful of the interests and whims and good or bad ideas of the behemoth to the north. For its part, Canada is cursed (or blessed, depending) by its location smack next to the center of global power: Ugly, in this case, America. Similarly constrained, but not peripheral. How to deal with that? Watching Justin Trudeau's news conference the other day, I couldn't imagine a more deft handling of that difficult spot.
As for the book you invoke, I had not thought about the Ugly American in these terms before, but it has been decades since I read it. It felt frankly OBE for different reasons. For one, Americans abroad in my experience had gotten a lot less ugly over time, sometimes behaving in model fashion relative to certain other (unnamed) nationalities. Also, ironically, considering the blind destructive unilateral approach of our current administration, the relative power of the US (by almost every measure) has declined. At the very least, we're entering a new era of geostrategic competition with a still rising PRC; more likely, centers of global power are multiplying and spreading outwards. US diplomats know they can no longer assume (if they ever foolishly did) that other countries will simply get in line. One reading of the Mad King Trump madness, in this context, is as the last bumptious gasp of an empire in decline, accelerated of course by the hubris and folly. Nice job.
We have also done a crappy job in explaining to the general public why foreign aid is provided. The idea that it is pure charity inevitably leads to many arguing that this charity ought to be first applied to those in need at home. Even making the soft power argument as you have done in this piece, Dan, clearly feels esoteric and unconvincing to many wondering how this benefits them in Arkansas or Saskatchewan. The same is true for diplomacy. There are some in our countries who will be supportive on a purely altruistic basis, feeling that it is their duty to assist others in need to the extent that they can. But they seem to be a minority, especially in hard economic times.
It is possible to take the next step to explain that existing in a world where there a fewer dictatorships, healthier and more prosperous countries in general benefits our countries as well. The current approach of the US government presents a good example as to how different the international order can be when based on trying to find win-win rather than “I win and you thus have to lose” scenarios. One might have thought that it was clear that helping prevent the spread of Ebola, HIV AIDS or COVID in other countries is to our benefit as well but we certainly have not been able to convince people on these principles.
Very true. "Don't want ebola here? Let's fight it there."
Not to mention that in the past, some aid was tied, meaning that it consisted of goods or services purchased in the donor country and sent overseas. So it was good for American or Canadian farmers (maybe even a subsidy...?) if the government purchased their grain and sent it elsewhere.
The late Rush drummer Neil Peart wrote some books about his travels, including one describing a bicycle trip across Cameroon in the 1980s. At one point, the dusty two-lane road they were riding on in the middle of nowhere widened into a four-lane highway. A few kilometres later, it abruptly reverted to a country road. It sounded a lot like a weird aid project where a donor country wanted to give an engineering firm some work.
I wonder what term we could use to describe a habit of mounting one’s favourite soapbox no matter how tangentially linked that such comments may be to the main issue being discussed.
If you hadn't figured out yet by the summer of 2020 that it would be impossible to "prevent the spread of COVID," given its mode of transmission, you weren't paying attention. The world is FAR too interconnected to keep a respiratory virus isolated to one country - even as big a country as China. Plus, there are numerous animal reservoirs for the virus, so unless you were willing to decimate the deer population (for example), it would keep popping up until it mutated into a benign variant. Of course the "vaccines" were not sterilizing: they didn't prevent infection of transmission, either. There was never any good public-policy rationale for lockdowns based in epidemiology.
I have a question for you to ask yourself: why do you subscribe to this substack? I have read many of your comments across numerous posts, and the are often hostile and disrespectful. Reasonable people can disagree (even heatedly) about many things, but that is not what you seem to be doing. You attack, often ad hominem. It is not persuasive.
Albertans (I assume that's where you're from) have many reasons to be unhappy with the federal Liberals. It is foolish to assume that Alberta will just get on board with a Team Canada approach when the feds have been treating it as a punching bag for the last decade. Danielle Smith makes many solid arguments for pipelines and resource development. All true.
But attacking people in the comments is not cool, even if you disagree with them -- even if they are wrong. So I implore you: be nice! It works better.
Or consider going somewhere more congenial to your point of view.
I don't live in an ideological silo, and I don't get my jollies from preaching to the choir. I'm the opposite of most people, I guess, Greg. I deliberately seek out people I disagree with, because I want to spread the wisdom to those who need it. And who knows, maybe by disagreeing I might learn something, and hone my own arguments.
My "tone" is forthright, but hardly more abrasive than the tone I am responding to. If you can't stand the heat, maybe stay out of the kitchen?
Okay, I respect being contrarian, but the goal should always be persuasion, not battle
A very thoughtful and useful piece. Strikes a chord with me as I read it when it first came out and felt rather hopeless reading it at first but there was hope there eventually. Dare we think that we are about to enter an era of changing institutions and new emerging moral and ethical standards as we pass through the “fourth turning”.
I recall my first visit to Europe in 1972. The war in Vietnam was still going strong and in many quarters it had a negative impact upon the reputation of Americans generally. It was very much a time when non Americans were referring to Americans as The Ugly Americans.
What stood out for me was the tactic of some young Americans who were travelling across Europe to fasten a Canadian sticker on their backpack to avoid a hostile reception from the locals.
As Canada is confronted with hostility from the U.S. President I hope that young Americans will choose to voice their concerns directly to their leaders rather than seeking the clock of anonymity with a Canadian sticker.
I'm currently overseas. For the first time in decades I've reverted to wearing a discrete Canadian flag pin, as much to identify myself as not being a citizen from that lawless country as it is pride of country.
If you think Canada is lawful, I have bad news for you. The reason Canada has become an international hub for organized crime, terrorists, and money laundering is that we have weak laws, weaker law-enforcement, and a catch-and-release criminal justice-system. (And I don't mean a criminal-justice system.)
I'm referring in particular to the machinery of government, which in the U.S. is currently lawless.
If you think the "current" administration is lawless, I have bad news for you, Andrew. The American government has been lawless for generations. You realize that the Obama administration illegally spied holus bolus on its own citizens, and then lied to Congress about it, right? You realize that the Obama administration specifically targeted journalists, and the Trump campaign team in 2016, with illegal wiretaps, right? You realize that the CIA has labeled American parents who attend Catholic school board meetings "domestic terrorists," right? That they put Tusli Gabbord on a travel alert, right? That they have weaponized the DoJ against political opponents, right?... None of this is esoteric knowledge. If you are only waking up to allegations of "government lawlessness" because of orange-man-bad memes, you are part of the problem.
The “ugliest Americans” like Musk are destroying decades of progress. In the Trump/MAGA era the incurious like Musk thrive by spreading lies. The US might wake up one day from this to realize how much good will they have squandered around the world. It is no longer the beacon of freedom. It is the embodiment of small minded, incurious & self satisfied white men.
"The US might" is probably being generous. We almost certainly will. Despite my gripes about certain things, I always felt deeply fortunate about being an American. Now it is just humiliating.
Trying to be diplomatic 😉
Not all mistakes are "lies," Gabriel.
And neither race nor sex has anything to do with it. What you want to rail against is human nature. Stop with the "white men" bullshit.
This was a welcome read after intense tariff-watch reading of past days. Dan your grasp of history is a real help. Keep it up from wherever you may find yourself today. I have a small experience with USAID and Cuba from the 1990s. I wonder how the US will achieve its long standing objective in Cuba without USAID, and especially with Rubio running State why Cuba has not yet surfaced in the manifest destiny speak? Or maybe Trump will launch a 21st Bay of Pigs…?
Thankyou Dan for this clear, informed look at the whys and hows of foreign aid. The shuttering of USA foreign aid is part of a wider "ugliest American" campaign to paint all social safety nets, all benefits as rewards to the lazy and greedy. There is a persistent drumbeat of "the undeserved took your hard-earned money". In forgetting the value of aid establishing "soft power" internationally, let alone the humanitarian duty of helping the less fortunate, it is Americans who are child-like and willfully blind.
After my 20 years in the Navy I started college to become educated. I struggled and never finished. I remember a Algebra class I was working hard at and I sat next to a young man right out of HS who slept most of the class and got "A's" on all the tests. I was also taking a "World History" class. He inquired about the large textbook I was carrying. "World History" was my response and then he said that "only American History was worth studying" then he nodded off to sleep. That was 30 year ago wonder where he is today?
Thank you so much for this. I read the Ugly American decades ago (found it in my parents' bookshelves) and have wondered ever since why the phrase came to mean the opposite of the character.
Banger of a post Dan! I've shared it with my British and Canadian friends.
dj trump made a point of declaring that the mountain named Denali in Alaska will revert to being called Mt McKinley again. He admires McKinley, who oversaw a healthy economy before the income tax was eventually introduced to pay for America's World War I engagement. McKinley presided during the first gilded age, a time of monopolies and wide economic inequality. These conditions have revisited America as the wealthiest 1% funnel away the vast majority of GDP growth in the economy, a process that accelerated under Ronald Reagan (Raygun?), a truly Ugly American president who played up America as "The Shining City on a Hill" when he wasn't trashing African-American women as 'Welfare Queens."
With all of the transactual turmoil, it is helpful to have this context and perspective.
I'm persuaded by your argument about the ugliest Americans. Of a certain vintage, I appreciate your examination of the literary origins to the phrase in popular culture.
I grew up in a rural community in the Maritimes where the main livelihoods were forestry or agriculture. I remember, as an adolescent and teenager, that when it came to hearing on the news that Canada would be spending X amount of dollars on foreign aid, my mother would say “Why are we spending so much money on other countries? We should be helping the people here at home.”
I couldn’t ever think of a way to dispute her logic, and so I never spoke up, but I always felt queasy not saying anything; it just seemed like a kind thing to do—and why wouldn’t we do it as long as our government was also still taking care of our citizens at home?
That was a long time ago. After all these years your article helps me see that there’s as much pragmatism to soft power as there is morality.
Thanks for the interesting and informative read.
Loud, abrasive ,aragont to hmm sounds like trump. A true ugly American