O'Leary's Gambit

 

An obvious political opportunity has emerged for someone in Canada. A new and vital issue is suddenly on the table: should Canada join the US? 

All the current national party leaders, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Green, have adamantly rejected the idea.

This leaves an opening—indeed a need—for a Continentalist Party, prepared to negotiate the possibility.

Some will call this treason. But no more treasonous than Newfoundlanders campaigning for union with Canada prior to 1949; not to mention similar political campaigns in PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or British Columbia in their turn. Canada is founded on a celebration of unification. This is entirely within that tradition.

The standard political commentators will scoff—according to opinion polls, they will point out, joining the US has only 15% support in Canada.

Just as they pointed out that Poilievre could never win an election, because his views are too extreme. O’Toole and Scheer supposedly had the wise and winning approach: triangulate, and stay as close to the views of the current polls as possible, to win the centre.

Leaders—like Trump or Poilievre—lead. They do not follow the polls, they change opinions. All that is needed for such a party to prosper, I suspect, is a well-spoken, charismatic leader.

The more so since it looks as though the left is in collapse, in Canada and around the developed world. This leaves a vacancy for an opposition party founded on principles different from the current left-right divide, in Canada and around the world as well.

Indeed, the Trump unification drive seems to already be stirring echoes, if X is any indication, in Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, with locals suggesting this would be a good idea for their country too.

This sort of a shift in the political debate has happened before. At the beginning of the 20th century, socialism and “progressivism” emerged, and the old electoral divide between liberal and conservative was supplanted everywhere by a new division between conservative-liberal “free marketers” and Marxist “welfare state”/“New Deal” parties. In Quebec, for a generation or more, the divide was between sovereigntist and federalist. As we see in Scotland, Wales, or Puerto Rico.

This new divide in Canada would be similar to that in Quebec: should Canada stay sovereign, or merge with the States? 

All that is needed is a well-spoken, charismatic leader who sees the opportunity.

Kevin O’Leary is an entrepreneur. He is reputed to be skilled in spotting business opportunities; that is what he does on TV. He has always been interested in politics—he ran unsuccessfully for the Conservative leadership some years ago, failing by his estimation due to his lack of French. He is charismatic and telegenic.

I think he sees this opportunity, and may be on his way to forming such a new political party. He was shrewd enough to be first off the mark with a proposal for union, making himself the spokesman for the movement.

What O’Leary is promoting is not annexation, but an arrangement similar to the European Union. A shared passport, open borders, free movement of people and goods. 

But this looks like little more than a sales technique. The EU, after all, is based on the premise of an “ever closer union.” The goal is a United States or Europe; it is only a question of how quickly it can be completed.

Furthermore, the US is not going to agree to surrendering any of its sovereignty to some higher body. The US is historically hostile to such ideas; and there is no reason for them to treat Canada as an equal partner.

And furthermore, the US’s prime stated goal is a unified defense perimeter and tight external border. This will already require a closer union than the EU has yet achieved. 

No, no matter how it is framed, the governing authority for such a union would be the US government. All O’Leary is negotiating for is autonomous territory status instead of statehood.  A worse deal for Canadians, but perhaps more palatable. At least until he can acclimatize Canadians to the new view out the Overton window.

More Reasons for Canadian Independence

 

In my quest for one good reason why Canada should be independent of the US, I have watched a video from True North.

Here are their arguments, as I noted them:

1. Canadians are more polite

Canadians have a reputation for being more polite; so do US Southerners. “Southern gentility.” Would anyone consider this a reason for the US South to be independent?

2. Canadians welcome immigrants.

Obviously, the US too welcomes immigrants. It is the original immigrant society. As we have that in common, it is an argument for union, not separation. 

3. America expects their immigrants to assimilate.

The old saw was that Canada was a “mosaic,” while the US was a “melting pot.” Canada has now enshrined “multiculturalism” in our constitution, while US money carries the motto “E Pluribus Unum.” A sad attempt to make Canada different from the US somehow. A distinction; but it is still an argument for union. Multiculturalism, as anyone could have predicted, is proving a disaster wherever it is tried. Witness the riots in Europe. The fact that it is embedded in the Canadian constitution, is a compelling argument for abolishing Canada and assimilation to the US. It may be the only way to get rid of the policy.

4. America has stronger protections for rights and freedoms. E.g., Canadians are squeamish about a right to bear arms.

One might also cite the stronger commitment to freedom of speech, versus Canada’s “hate speech” laws. Again, while this is a distinction, it is a compelling argument for union. It gives us more rights.

5. Commitment to the crown

This is the reason Canada exists. But how important is it? How much is it worth sacrificing for? The crown’s role, afer all, is only symbolic.

6. There is more decentralization of power in Canada

This is a bit of a historical accident. On paper, US states have more power than Canadian provinces. Canadian decentralization has developed de facto from the need to appease Quebec.

That need would continue were Quebec part of the larger union. Accordingly, assimilating Quebec should decrease centralization throughout North America, given that the US Constitution allows for more decentralization than the Canadian one.

This makes union more desirable: decentralization is a trend already in the US.

7. America is an escape route for oppressed Canadians, so long as it is independent.

This argument works the opposite way too: Canada is an escape route for oppressed Americans, as in the days of the Underground Railroad, or the Vietnam draft.

This seems to me the best argument for an independent Canada. 

Yet the escape route is more open and accessible, if less complete, if we have the right to live and work on either side of the border. With fifty states, or fifty-five, instead of ten provinces, we have more options. If we need to flee some federal policy—there is still the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Thailand, and so forth. It seems less necessary than it once was for the complete escape to be within a day’s drive.

So I have yet so see a strong argument for Canada to remain independence. It seems no more than a sentimental attachment.