Donald Trump thrives on disruption, and a surprising number of Canadians seem drawn into the resulting whirlwind. Despite a decade of observing his methods, many within our political circles and the media continue to react to every pronouncement as if it were a carefully considered policy statement.
Journalist Salena Zito, back in 2016, brilliantly captured the dynamic at play. She observed that Trump’s supporters took his words seriously, even if not literally, while the press tended to do the opposite – taking his claims literally, but failing to grasp the underlying intent.
Canada’s political establishment consistently appears to take Trump both literally and seriously, particularly when his thoughts appear on social media. Every comment, every perceived provocation, triggers a flurry of indignation and calls for resistance against what is portrayed as a hostile America.
The recent episode involving Greenland perfectly illustrates this pattern. Outrage flared, with demands for a strong show of solidarity with Denmark and even suggestions of deploying troops to defend against a supposed American invasion. Yet, the continuation of existing NORAD exercises, with Canadian participation, quietly revealed a different reality – one where the threat was not taken at face value.
Mark Carney’s speech in Davos was arguably designed to elicit a reaction. He should have anticipated that a pointed critique of the United States, delivered on the eve of Trump’s arrival, would not go unanswered. Trump’s response – asserting Canada’s dependence on the United States – was swift and predictably provocative.
The ensuing exchange included the rescinding of an invitation to Carney to join a Board of Peace, and ultimately, a threat of crippling tariffs should Canada pursue a trade deal with China. Each escalation was met with a predictable chorus of condemnation and concern within Canada’s political landscape.
The key is to understand what Trump truly seeks. Are the tariff threats genuine, or are they a tactic? They should be taken seriously, but not literally. His primary concern is preventing China from using Canada as a backdoor to circumvent American trade restrictions, particularly in sectors like steel and automobiles.
This is a legitimate concern for Canada’s own economic interests. While trade with China is not inherently problematic, becoming overly reliant on its economy could be detrimental. A balanced approach is crucial, and linking our fate too closely with China’s would be a misstep.
Despite claims of China being a more reliable partner, the reality is starkly different. China operates on a principle of self-interest, prioritizing its own gains above all else. Instead of reacting emotionally to Trump’s rhetoric, we must filter out the noise and focus on the underlying message.
There is no genuine threat to Canada in these pronouncements. An angry, reactive response serves only to expend energy and distract from constructive solutions. Dominic LeBlanc’s measured response – emphasizing the strong Canada-US partnership and denying any pursuit of a free trade agreement with China – was precisely the right approach.
It’s time to break the cycle of chaos fueled by taking Trump’s words at face value. A calm, strategic response, focused on protecting Canadian interests and understanding the true motivations behind his actions, is the only path forward.
