Great piece but the "surrender" vocabulary is stupid, making this whole thing sound like a two-way disagreement. Trump tore up existing agreements (most recently which he had negotiated) to raise prices for Americans while creating rifts with allies who he keeps threatening to annex. Stopping that whole course of action doesn't need any kind of apology.
I read the "surrender" language as a joke about how harmless the Canadians are! (I would say that since I am Canadian). Yes, surrender to us, we will come as a conquering army, riding up Pennsylvania Avenue on a moose to demand our tribute! (lol).
Kidding aside, as I mentioned yesterday, Trump's approach really is "war" to us. As MY correctly notes, the Trump administration is viewed as an existential threat to our sovereignty here, in no small part because Trump loudly says so every chance he gets. It is the number one story up here all the time. We just told those second rate thugs in the White House to fuck off, and it felt good. The beating that's coming our way is going to hurt (and I don't know how this is going to end) but we've been trying to appease the bully for 18 months now and we're done with it.
(This sentiment is widely held: here's noted Canadian economist Don Drummond making exactly the same argument. ""I'm getting a little tired, mainly, with fellow economists who point out that it's harmful to Canada to retaliate. I think that's pretty narrow-minded," Drummond said. "I'd like to give that advice to the kid in the schoolyard who's getting bullied, [because] it's not much more complicated than that: If you want to stop a bully you have to be prepared to get your nose bloodied. It just eggs them on otherwise."
I note Scott Bissent's claim yesterday that "this isn't a trade war, we're not at war with Canada", followed a joke about Canada's submarine fleet. I guess the idea of a "trade war with Canada" isn't too popular in the US. Well, you put tariffs on us, we're putting them on you, and you're retaliating further.. that's pretty much what a "trade war" is.
(yes yes yes there are lots of legitimate gripes between two countries with 9000km long border and 150+ years of shared history alongside each other.... maybe someday the US will get back to normal gripes and normal negotiating methods... but Canada can never unlearn what the US has shown us, which is that the US cannot be trusted to maintain any commitment or shared values and we need to plan everything with that in mind, including the independence of our vital infrastructure (nothing can be allowed to go through the United States, that's just a chokepoint). It will not be easy, because our geography makes east-west connections very difficult and north-south connections very easy (which is why we are in such a sickeningly vulnerable position now), but we don't have a choice. What was broken here cannot easily be fixed).
Canada, Denmark, I would say the vast number of Americans (R or D) don’t appreciate the damage done by the US’s Trump Era. How much pain can Canada take? Two plus years worth and more, I suspect. I think MY needs to go back and re-read the Middle Powers speech — this is not a binary choice between China and the US. It is a rethinking of the World Order based on the Rule of Law. Carney is working to integrate the provinces more, he is looking for other markets for Canadian products, he is working to uncouple the Canadian dependency on the US. He is increasing connections to Europe. Canadian Universities just have hired away 45 US faculty members. America is blowing itself up — I am afraid there is no going back to before Trump. Carney is a leader that I hope manages to drive the world to a third way.
I would urge Canadians not to lose faith in Democrats so quickly. It's bone-headed for Newsom to demur on keeping the tariffs on Canada, but that could be excessive caution and/or stupidity. Either way, he's about to be a former governor. To achieve a higher office than that will take years of campaigning and he will no doubt be pressed on that point - sticking to the position he expressed there would likely cost him support.
It certainly isn't true that Democrats have been planning all along to play good cop-bad cop with Trump. Strong enmity for Trump is the most uniting fact we have. Many of us have deep connections with Canada. I want the best for Canadians. I also envy them for having Carney for a leader instead of Trump.
Consider the situation from the perspective of American Democrats. Our politicians have very little power right now. Short of Civil War (not going to happen) the only thing we can do to change that is to get more popular and win more elections. This has already started but will take two years and two months to *possibly* succeed. A lot of us are working hard on it, though.
> That being said, he also flipped the G.O.P. into opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare! The latter is an unambiguous case of Trump dropping a high-profile unpopular G.O.P. policy commitment.
I'm so tired of hearing MY and other people say this. Sure Trump may "vocally" say that he is against cuts to social security and Medicare but the OBBBA included like $500B in cuts to Medicare. Additionally, most Republicans in Congress and the Senate still want cuts to Social Security and they are doing nothing to deal with the potential shortfall there. I really have no idea why MY has been saying for the past year at least that Trump has flipped the GOP into dropping a key policy ideal of theirs for decades, when their actual actions point to the opposite.
I wonder what the state of it is *now*. The strongest member of the alliance is doing everything possible to signal that it won't lift a finger to help any other member, in fact it is viewed as more of a potential threat than an alliance partner.
I think it will be hard to restore both international and domestic norms that have been knocked down. And that the next president will have lots of things they want/need to do with their limited political capital, of which restoring those norms is not the top item.
And as a result, I predict (with low confidence, WTF do I know?) that we will live in a much worse world over the next decade or two.
It's much broader than tariffs. The U.S. - Canada relationship includes the world's longest unguarded border. Destroying this relationship is beyond folly--it borders on treason.
Is it too wonkish to say "we will undo all unilaterally implemented tariffs by any president. If the American people want them, Congress can pass them into law."? These tariffs have mostly been used to manipulate markets and extract concessions for Trump's own gain. That should just be illegal. Repeal all the tariffs and let Congress figure it out.
Most tariffs are rent seeking by special interests. As Yglesias notes, there are legitimate reasons also. In the current environment, expecting Congress to do anything is merely a fond hope, but doing nothing will be preferable to Trump’s craziness.
Yeah that's kind of the point. Like with war (where Congressional approval used to be required (and they too would mess it up)), if a large fraction of Americans believe in it, then it would happen, but otherwise nothing would happen. And that's a good thing.
However, I also don't believe that Congress would pass a law limiting the president's ability to inflict tariffs, so on that point I solemnly agree with your low expectations of Congress.
And it isn't like 'OK maybe surrender isn't good politics but it is technically accurate'.
If you attack, realize you were wrong, and then withdraw you aren't surrendering!! That isn't what the word means. Surrendering includes submission. I remain flummoxed MY would use this word.
I'm a bit more sympathetic to Newsom than other people on this thread but I don't like his wishy-washy answer but at the same time MY I think overestimates how much complete repudiation or promises will actually matter. They're just words. At this point as some of the Canadians on this thread, have pointed out, they don't trust us and they have good reason not to. Even if we get real free trade policies in the next administration(s), the fact that Americans may vote for a Trump-like figure in the future is as much as factor as the Trump-like politicians themselves. Basically, unless there are actions that ensure free trade beyond the ability of congress, any presidential administration or the political system at large to reverse, no country will trust our commitments.
The credibility of this country in the future depends on how effectively the Democrats engage in de-baathification in 2028. The fact that they could not and would not do it last time around is likely a fatal error.
I think it is important to state that debaathification failed, embittered the Sunnis, and led to the formation of ISIS. So if you want to do it, you should explain what you think should be done differently. Similarly denazification was pursued heavily in East Germany and yet the AfD is very strong there.
A major objective of the 9FamEx28 platform is building international goodwill by establishing that a reversion is unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future.
Seems like the safe thing to say might be "Under our leadership, we will revert back to the USCMA baseline, and join in good faith talks with our neighbors about restoring the agreement". Seems easy enough to defend the fact that we had a negotiated agreement, and Trump just blew it up for insane reasons, and we will ignore all that and start again from there.
I realise I'm biased, being a Canuck myself, but reversing all of Trump's actions against Canada should really be the bare minimum step in renormalising Canada-US relations. And it cannot be coupled with demands for concessions on the Canadian side that go beyond the status quo antebellum. Obviously framing that as "surrender" probably isn't the savviest messaging strategy, but it shouldn't be too hard to sell as beneficial to both countries.
My fear is that once a conflict has been manufactured, no matter how pointless it is, any unilateral backtracking will be attacked as capitulation. Hence why Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands despite the dispute having been entirely manufactured by an insane dictator everyone now hates. Or why the antiwar Russian opposition is largely unable to outright say that Russia should give up the territory it seized in Ukraine, despite them opposing annexing the Donbass just 6 years ago. Hopefully maturity prevails on the Democratic side and making amends with Canada, Denmark, Ukraine et al. is seen less as surrender than just undoing the damage done by an aberrant failure of an administration.
"reversing all of Trump's actions against Canada should really be the bare minimum step in renormalising Canada-US relations. "
Forever is a long time (even Germany and France became friends again), but a complete repudiation of everything Trump has done is the bare minimum for this household to reconsider its current boycott* of all US goods, services, and travel (exception made for a few US subscriptions to support American resistance).
I'm reminded of two quotes from the great philosopher of our time, Slim Charles of The Wire.
"Yeah, now well, the thing about the old days, they the old days."
"Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. I mean shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."
not to say any of that is a good thing, but I think it's easy to underestimate the power of inertia in politics. Things will keep rolling forward. Detente takes a lot of prestige, and credibility. You gotta think, there's gonna be two years of institutional push, it maybe halfhearted, it may be done for totally fake reasons (some real ones too), but I think the war's more or less on.
Even a full-on capitulation wouldn't just reset it to status quo (trade)antebellum, you have to think that in the framework of a "war" or "conflict," the loser's going actually concede real things.
Thank you, Matt, for writing this, but reading the comments I still fear that folks are largely not getting it. Are there areas where Canada is protectionist and the trade relationship could stand to improve? Yes, definitely. But why do folks think that tariffs on Canada will accomplish that goal? There are plenty of Canadians that understand that our dairy protectionism only makes us poorer. But ultimately the US is the hegemon here -- demonstrate that free trade is good for Canada by allowing for free trade yourself.
Even if free trade is popular with a majority of Democrats, if it's unpolular with moderate. swingable swing-state voters in places like PA, MI, and WI, it can be a problem.
I think Newson was just being a politician and not being too committal, and people arereadong way too much into it. However, it is also true that ststus quo bias is powerfule, and if some people are benefitting from tariffs and the costs are diffused, it's way harder to get rid of them once they are in place that to not enact them from the start.
Great piece but the "surrender" vocabulary is stupid, making this whole thing sound like a two-way disagreement. Trump tore up existing agreements (most recently which he had negotiated) to raise prices for Americans while creating rifts with allies who he keeps threatening to annex. Stopping that whole course of action doesn't need any kind of apology.
I read the "surrender" language as a joke about how harmless the Canadians are! (I would say that since I am Canadian). Yes, surrender to us, we will come as a conquering army, riding up Pennsylvania Avenue on a moose to demand our tribute! (lol).
Kidding aside, as I mentioned yesterday, Trump's approach really is "war" to us. As MY correctly notes, the Trump administration is viewed as an existential threat to our sovereignty here, in no small part because Trump loudly says so every chance he gets. It is the number one story up here all the time. We just told those second rate thugs in the White House to fuck off, and it felt good. The beating that's coming our way is going to hurt (and I don't know how this is going to end) but we've been trying to appease the bully for 18 months now and we're done with it.
(This sentiment is widely held: here's noted Canadian economist Don Drummond making exactly the same argument. ""I'm getting a little tired, mainly, with fellow economists who point out that it's harmful to Canada to retaliate. I think that's pretty narrow-minded," Drummond said. "I'd like to give that advice to the kid in the schoolyard who's getting bullied, [because] it's not much more complicated than that: If you want to stop a bully you have to be prepared to get your nose bloodied. It just eggs them on otherwise."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-leverage-tradewar-cost-economists-9.7324779)
I note Scott Bissent's claim yesterday that "this isn't a trade war, we're not at war with Canada", followed a joke about Canada's submarine fleet. I guess the idea of a "trade war with Canada" isn't too popular in the US. Well, you put tariffs on us, we're putting them on you, and you're retaliating further.. that's pretty much what a "trade war" is.
(yes yes yes there are lots of legitimate gripes between two countries with 9000km long border and 150+ years of shared history alongside each other.... maybe someday the US will get back to normal gripes and normal negotiating methods... but Canada can never unlearn what the US has shown us, which is that the US cannot be trusted to maintain any commitment or shared values and we need to plan everything with that in mind, including the independence of our vital infrastructure (nothing can be allowed to go through the United States, that's just a chokepoint). It will not be easy, because our geography makes east-west connections very difficult and north-south connections very easy (which is why we are in such a sickeningly vulnerable position now), but we don't have a choice. What was broken here cannot easily be fixed).
Canada, Denmark, I would say the vast number of Americans (R or D) don’t appreciate the damage done by the US’s Trump Era. How much pain can Canada take? Two plus years worth and more, I suspect. I think MY needs to go back and re-read the Middle Powers speech — this is not a binary choice between China and the US. It is a rethinking of the World Order based on the Rule of Law. Carney is working to integrate the provinces more, he is looking for other markets for Canadian products, he is working to uncouple the Canadian dependency on the US. He is increasing connections to Europe. Canadian Universities just have hired away 45 US faculty members. America is blowing itself up — I am afraid there is no going back to before Trump. Carney is a leader that I hope manages to drive the world to a third way.
I would urge Canadians not to lose faith in Democrats so quickly. It's bone-headed for Newsom to demur on keeping the tariffs on Canada, but that could be excessive caution and/or stupidity. Either way, he's about to be a former governor. To achieve a higher office than that will take years of campaigning and he will no doubt be pressed on that point - sticking to the position he expressed there would likely cost him support.
It certainly isn't true that Democrats have been planning all along to play good cop-bad cop with Trump. Strong enmity for Trump is the most uniting fact we have. Many of us have deep connections with Canada. I want the best for Canadians. I also envy them for having Carney for a leader instead of Trump.
Consider the situation from the perspective of American Democrats. Our politicians have very little power right now. Short of Civil War (not going to happen) the only thing we can do to change that is to get more popular and win more elections. This has already started but will take two years and two months to *possibly* succeed. A lot of us are working hard on it, though.
> That being said, he also flipped the G.O.P. into opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare! The latter is an unambiguous case of Trump dropping a high-profile unpopular G.O.P. policy commitment.
I'm so tired of hearing MY and other people say this. Sure Trump may "vocally" say that he is against cuts to social security and Medicare but the OBBBA included like $500B in cuts to Medicare. Additionally, most Republicans in Congress and the Senate still want cuts to Social Security and they are doing nothing to deal with the potential shortfall there. I really have no idea why MY has been saying for the past year at least that Trump has flipped the GOP into dropping a key policy ideal of theirs for decades, when their actual actions point to the opposite.
If not for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, I wonder what the state of NATO would be by now.
I wonder what the state of it is *now*. The strongest member of the alliance is doing everything possible to signal that it won't lift a finger to help any other member, in fact it is viewed as more of a potential threat than an alliance partner.
I think it will be hard to restore both international and domestic norms that have been knocked down. And that the next president will have lots of things they want/need to do with their limited political capital, of which restoring those norms is not the top item.
And as a result, I predict (with low confidence, WTF do I know?) that we will live in a much worse world over the next decade or two.
It's much broader than tariffs. The U.S. - Canada relationship includes the world's longest unguarded border. Destroying this relationship is beyond folly--it borders on treason.
Is it too wonkish to say "we will undo all unilaterally implemented tariffs by any president. If the American people want them, Congress can pass them into law."? These tariffs have mostly been used to manipulate markets and extract concessions for Trump's own gain. That should just be illegal. Repeal all the tariffs and let Congress figure it out.
Most tariffs are rent seeking by special interests. As Yglesias notes, there are legitimate reasons also. In the current environment, expecting Congress to do anything is merely a fond hope, but doing nothing will be preferable to Trump’s craziness.
Yeah that's kind of the point. Like with war (where Congressional approval used to be required (and they too would mess it up)), if a large fraction of Americans believe in it, then it would happen, but otherwise nothing would happen. And that's a good thing.
However, I also don't believe that Congress would pass a law limiting the president's ability to inflict tariffs, so on that point I solemnly agree with your low expectations of Congress.
It is CRAZY to refer to sanity as surrender!!
Yes, Democrats should say they will end the tariffs as soon as they have power.
Yes, Democrats should say it is crazy to attack our best friend and they will do all they can to restore trust and cooperation.
Yes, Newsom muffed it.
I know MY likes to stir the pot, but really, have some sense. MY knows "surrender" will be used to whip people up. Can't he control himself?
And it isn't like 'OK maybe surrender isn't good politics but it is technically accurate'.
If you attack, realize you were wrong, and then withdraw you aren't surrendering!! That isn't what the word means. Surrendering includes submission. I remain flummoxed MY would use this word.
I'm a bit more sympathetic to Newsom than other people on this thread but I don't like his wishy-washy answer but at the same time MY I think overestimates how much complete repudiation or promises will actually matter. They're just words. At this point as some of the Canadians on this thread, have pointed out, they don't trust us and they have good reason not to. Even if we get real free trade policies in the next administration(s), the fact that Americans may vote for a Trump-like figure in the future is as much as factor as the Trump-like politicians themselves. Basically, unless there are actions that ensure free trade beyond the ability of congress, any presidential administration or the political system at large to reverse, no country will trust our commitments.
The credibility of this country in the future depends on how effectively the Democrats engage in de-baathification in 2028. The fact that they could not and would not do it last time around is likely a fatal error.
I think it is important to state that debaathification failed, embittered the Sunnis, and led to the formation of ISIS. So if you want to do it, you should explain what you think should be done differently. Similarly denazification was pursued heavily in East Germany and yet the AfD is very strong there.
How do you propose the Dems do that?
Also, won't they need to wait until 2029?
"I would simply lock up my opponents in jail, and permanently bar them from ever serving in government again." Easy, totally normal stuff like this!
A major objective of the 9FamEx28 platform is building international goodwill by establishing that a reversion is unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future.
Seems like the safe thing to say might be "Under our leadership, we will revert back to the USCMA baseline, and join in good faith talks with our neighbors about restoring the agreement". Seems easy enough to defend the fact that we had a negotiated agreement, and Trump just blew it up for insane reasons, and we will ignore all that and start again from there.
I realise I'm biased, being a Canuck myself, but reversing all of Trump's actions against Canada should really be the bare minimum step in renormalising Canada-US relations. And it cannot be coupled with demands for concessions on the Canadian side that go beyond the status quo antebellum. Obviously framing that as "surrender" probably isn't the savviest messaging strategy, but it shouldn't be too hard to sell as beneficial to both countries.
My fear is that once a conflict has been manufactured, no matter how pointless it is, any unilateral backtracking will be attacked as capitulation. Hence why Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands despite the dispute having been entirely manufactured by an insane dictator everyone now hates. Or why the antiwar Russian opposition is largely unable to outright say that Russia should give up the territory it seized in Ukraine, despite them opposing annexing the Donbass just 6 years ago. Hopefully maturity prevails on the Democratic side and making amends with Canada, Denmark, Ukraine et al. is seen less as surrender than just undoing the damage done by an aberrant failure of an administration.
"reversing all of Trump's actions against Canada should really be the bare minimum step in renormalising Canada-US relations. "
Forever is a long time (even Germany and France became friends again), but a complete repudiation of everything Trump has done is the bare minimum for this household to reconsider its current boycott* of all US goods, services, and travel (exception made for a few US subscriptions to support American resistance).
I'm reminded of two quotes from the great philosopher of our time, Slim Charles of The Wire.
"Yeah, now well, the thing about the old days, they the old days."
"Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. I mean shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."
not to say any of that is a good thing, but I think it's easy to underestimate the power of inertia in politics. Things will keep rolling forward. Detente takes a lot of prestige, and credibility. You gotta think, there's gonna be two years of institutional push, it maybe halfhearted, it may be done for totally fake reasons (some real ones too), but I think the war's more or less on.
Even a full-on capitulation wouldn't just reset it to status quo (trade)antebellum, you have to think that in the framework of a "war" or "conflict," the loser's going actually concede real things.
Thank you, Matt, for writing this, but reading the comments I still fear that folks are largely not getting it. Are there areas where Canada is protectionist and the trade relationship could stand to improve? Yes, definitely. But why do folks think that tariffs on Canada will accomplish that goal? There are plenty of Canadians that understand that our dairy protectionism only makes us poorer. But ultimately the US is the hegemon here -- demonstrate that free trade is good for Canada by allowing for free trade yourself.
Even if free trade is popular with a majority of Democrats, if it's unpolular with moderate. swingable swing-state voters in places like PA, MI, and WI, it can be a problem.
I think Newson was just being a politician and not being too committal, and people arereadong way too much into it. However, it is also true that ststus quo bias is powerfule, and if some people are benefitting from tariffs and the costs are diffused, it's way harder to get rid of them once they are in place that to not enact them from the start.