Unburdened by What Has Been?

 

Discussion of the US annexing Canada is spreading, in the media and on X. 

I watch carefully the Canadian responses. What arguments does anyone have? Why is Canada independent?

The one argument I see is “we have universal health care.”

Not a good argument. In theory, if it so chose, Canada could still offer and provide universal health care for its residents as a US State.

Most often, no argument is given. Just an expletive, usually one beginning with F and ending with off.

This proves those who react this way have no argument.

As a businessman and entrepreneur, Trump has the skill of seeing a business opportunity. He sees when money has been left on the table. 

Canada was left on the table by the Statute of Westminster, and then progressively by the dropping of preferential tariffs when the UK entered the EU, the patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the influx of new immigrants. Its reason to exist was its British ties. They are gone. Britain walked away.

I think Canadians have felt this in their hearts for some time. Hence the frequent lament about an absence of Canadian identity. Justin Trudeau himself has said Canada has no identity, no reason to exist, no "mainstream." Hence the Canadian desire to join any international association going. Hence it's idolization of anything coming from abroad, its "multiculturalism."

Perhaps it would be a mercy.

Was Manifest Destiny Really Such a Bad Idea?

Report has leaked that, at their recent meeting in Mar-a-Lago, Justin Trudeau argued that Trump must not impose his proposed 25% tariff on Canada, “because it would wreck Canada’s economy.” To which Trump reputedly responded, “if the Canadian economy can’t survive without ripping the US off for $100 million a year (or whatever the figure was), maybe you should just become the 51st state. You could be governor. 

And everyone is taking this as a joke.

Is it?

And is it a bad idea?

Let’s consider it from Trump’s point of view. People, including me. have been assuming that his threat of 25% tariffs was just a gambit to open negotiations. But Trump has also said he wanted to finance the government with tariffs rather than income taxes. So the high tariffs fit in with his plan. Why would he sacrifice it for Canada’s sake? America first!

Trump is also concerned with legacy. He has already floated the idea of buying Greenland. High tariffs could indeed force Canada to plead for union. Trump would have more than doubled the land mass of the US, outdoing Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana purchase, and surely earning him a place on Mount Rushmore.

(Much easier to do, by the way, with modern AI and 3-D modelling. They are already being used to carve stone decorations for building exteriors. Not the major undertaking it was for the president already there.)

Annexing Canada makes huge sense for America’s national security. It secures vast strategic resources and control of the Arctic, more urgent with global warming. Canada is incapable of securing the Arctic for itself. By joining forces, on the other hand, America becomes stronger and better able to defend our joint interests.

Canada has, after all, been a useless military ally in recent years, underspending on its defense and relying on the US taxpayer to defend it. Why should the US put up with this?

The argument against annexation is that Canada is politically more left-leaning than the US; so giving 40 million Canadians the franchise would be bad for Trump’s Republican Party. But this might not deter Trump personally, since he is not running again. Moreover, Trump has shown an ability to alter the electoral map, and appeal to new coalitions of voters. He has won over most of the working class; of the rust belt; he has drawn Hispanics--all formerly considered bedrock leftist constituencies. He seems to me to already be in progress of winning over Canadians. “Maple MAGA” is becoming a thing. Why not? The Republican party is being remade in Trump’s image. Trump’s agenda has really never been either clearly traditionally left or right.

One might worry that there would be much unrest among the local population if the Americans took over. It would have to be voluntary. But the tariffs could do a lot to convince Canucks of the need.

Why, given all this, would Trump back down on his tariffs? As a personal favour to Justin Trudeau?

Where's that laughing emoticon when I need it?

Now let’s look at it from the point of view of Canadians. Why not? What is the argument for Canada remaining independent? After all, the two countries share the same language (but for Quebec), the same culture, the same geography, the same history. Nova Scotians have at least as much in common with the people of Maine as they do with those of Quebec; or as Maine does with Louisiana. It has often been observed that British Columbians have more in common with, and more common interests with, the people of Washington or Alaska than with Newfoundlanders. Anywhere else on the globe we would probably be one country. 

The sole reason Canada became independent was loyalty to the British crown and the British connection. The British connection evaporated for all practical purposes in 1932 or so. Since then, there is only the sentimental attachment to the Royal Family. 

How much is that worth?

Canadians, if they joined the US, would not lose self-government. That is the beauty of the federal system. Canadians can continue to tend to their own Canadian affairs within the wider union. Rather, joining the US gives greater assurance of self-government. As we have seen recently, Canadian governments can go rogue and trample human rights. The Americans have a longer and culturally stronger tradition of democracy; with union, in such cases, the feds could step in. Just as Eisenhower sent in the national guard to desegregate Arkansas back in the day. Moreover, with greater ease of movement, Canadians could more easily escape a repressive local or regional government. One could always easily move to Florida, say, or some other given state whose policies suit you better. You can do this now to a more limited extent within Canada, but the choices are far fewer. Historically, Americans have always found it easier to move about than Canadians have.

Joining the US gives a greater measure of self-government in another sense too. It is a reality that who is in power in the US, and what policies they pursue, matters vitally to Canadians; arguably more than their own government. This is true for the entire Western world, but to Canada more than anyone. Nevertheless, as things stand, Canadians have no vote on who is in power in Washington, or what policies they pursue. We would surely be better off with representation.

And what are we paying for independence? Canadians have almost always made less than Americans on average, and everything costs more. Opportunities are much fewer for those hoping to rise to the top of their profession or business, without full access to the vastly larger US consumer and job market. We are paying a huge premium merely for a sentimental attachment to the British monarchy.

And if Trump imposes a 25% tariff across the board, that premium becomes dramatically greater. We already seem skidding into Third World status under current government policies; this would cast the die.

Let's see: Canadians, how about better pay, more opportunities, lower taxes, cheaper food and housing, and easy escapes from winters in Florida?

Canada is surely too large to be admitted as one state. Granted, the population is about the same as California, the biggest current state. But with its land area, Canada could soon have a much larger population. Besides, you really must recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec.

Ten states might be too generous. Five makes the most sense: BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces.

The assimilation of Canada might start a trend: for many of the same arguments apply for the rest of the English-speaking world. Once, it might have made sense to have separate governments, because of distances and poor communications. Today, everyone in Australia knows everything that is going on in Canada, instantly, and everyone in the US knows and cares about everything that is going on in Britain. Separation is increasingly artificial and undesirable.

We Need to Talk about Canada

 

Tucker Carlson, on air, has asked whether it is time for the US to intervene in Canada. After all, does America want another Cuba?

I remember when I was younger saying I would be ready to die if necessary to stop an American invasion.

Now I think I would welcome it. My concern is only that freedom and democracy in the US is not that much more stable than in Canada. Give me a DeSantis or Trump regime in Washington, and I would feel good about it. The Americans are our guarantee against tyranny, and tyranny is plainly developing in Canada at the federal level.

I expect in military terms it would be an almost bloodless affair. Whether the Canadian forces would even bother to put up a fight is doubtful. Why resist? If the Americans annex Canada, life goes on, only with more freedoms, full democracy, and greater prosperity. And potentially much less fuss crossing the border for a job or a vacation. 

I could live with that.

More Christian Privilege

 

"American Progress," 1872. Note that it is a neo-pagan Classical goddess, "Colombia," and not Jesus, leading the settlers westward in the popular imagination.

An American professor of (of course) education, Khyati Joshi, has published a book against “white Christian privilege.” Joshi, a Hindu, is fairly obviously jockeying for position in the caste system called intersectionality. She maintains that even non-white Christians, black or Hispanic, have unearned privilege over her as a Hindu. She claims that there is “systemic religious oppression over the history of” the United States.

This is odd, since the US, unlike many countries, has no established religion or church, and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience in its constitution. One would think “Christian privilege” is far less an issue in the US than, say, Muslim privilege in Pakistan, Buddhist privilege in Thailand, or Hindu privilege in India. My friend Xerxes, in fact, in his most recent column wrote about the persecution of Christians in modern India.

Joshi claims this constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion is an “illusion,” and cites court cases that ruled against the religious demands of members of minority religions. She ignores court cases that ruled against the religious demands of Christians. Nor does she examine the legal arguments.

Among the ills Joshi blames on Christian privilege are the idea of “manifest destiny,” and slavery, which she claims has “Biblical justification.”

Neither of these have anything in particular to do with Christianity. Manifest destiny was not a religious concept, and did not emerge from theologians or pastors. It was a political slogan, first proposed by a newspaperman, and embraced by some politicians. These as a matter of course appealed to “Providence” to justify their claim to a right to expand the US westward. But they were not religious authorities. Anyone is going to appeal to Providence to justify any political idea, especially one that might be challenged on moral grounds. The signers of the Declaration of Independence similarly called on Providence to justify their concept of a new state based on freedom and equality; so if one is going to credit manifest destiny to Christianity, one must credit freedom and human equality, including freedom of religion, to it as well. Except that the latter idea, unlike the former, indeed originated with and was endorsed by religious authorities.

Manifest Destiny was a minority political opinion, not itself hegemonic. Canada similarly expanded westward without any such doctrine. So did Australia or Argentina; while Russia expanded East. Greece and Phoenicia expanded West across the Mediterranean long before Christianity was thought of. Untilled land next door tends to get settled.

Similarly, slavery was no Christian institution. It was endemic across the world, and least common in Christian countries. Of course defenders of slavery tried to justify themselves as well as they could from the Bible. But it was Christian nations, most notably Britain, that determined to end it everywhere. And this was an explicitly Christian enterprise, led by Quakers and evangelicals. Far earlier, the Pope in Rome had declared slavery illicit.

Nor does Joshi note that there is clear warrant for slavery in the Hindu Vedas.

What manifestly needs to be ended is not Christian privilege, but education schools.