No, Canada
Blame Canada? Not so fast.
Americans tend to turn off their election brain when there isn’t a presidential contest on the calendar; even most midterm federal elections see relatively slim turnout in comparison, although that may be changing as politics becomes more polarized and internet-centric. But US elections aren’t the only ones that impact our national interests or even our domestic situation. Our society, economy, and security can be affected by politics far afield – think China or Russia – or much closer to home. And those other nations are often impacted by us in the same way, if not more seriously given the immense power of the United States. We had a perfect example of this happening just this week.
Monday, April 28, was the snap Canadian parliamentary election that was called upon the resignation of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this year. The contest pitted the two major parties – the Liberals, led by Mark Carney, and the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre – and a slew of smaller parties like the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québecois (BQ) against one another to win the governance of Canada for the next several years. The Liberals have been the governing party for the last 10 years, mainly under the aegis of the now-defenestrated and deeply unpopular Trudeau. Carney replaced him after gaining the support of Liberal elites, leading to this contest. For months, it looked as though the Conservatives would secure a significant majority, coming back into power for the first time since the Stephen Harper era. But that simply did not materialize once the election rolled around – for reasons we shall discuss later.
In the end, the Liberals claimed victory, albeit in a minority position – something not uncommon in parliamentary systems. They are projected to win 169 seats, just shy of a majority in the 343-seat Parliament and an increase from their prior 160-seat 2021 result. As such, Carney will remain Prime Minister and the Cabinet will likely continue on as well. The Conservatives came second, with a projected 144 seats and 41.3% of the vote, their highest share in nearly 40 years and 11 such elections, up from 119 seats in 2021. They excelled with younger voters and blue-collar workers, groups that will likely become more important in future elections. Still, Poilievre, the party leader, lost his riding, Carleton, in a close contest. This does not stop him from continuing on as Conservative leader, but he will not sit in Parliament. His constituency has always been a challenging one for a Conservative, but Poilievre had held it for nearly two decades through sheer willpower; heading a national campaign unfortunately put him at a local disadvantage. The remaining parties all lost vote share compared to 2021; the BQ dropped from 32 seats to 22, the NDP collapsed from 25 to a mere 7, and the Greens went from 2 to 1.
The story of this election is not necessarily a downfall in Conservative popularity; they actually outperformed polls and remained relatively stable in approval since late 2024. It is instead the rapid rise of the Liberals, fueled by the ruin of smaller parties and one novel issue in particular.
Until about December of last year, the Conservatives had an enormous 20-plus point lead over their Liberal rivals, still led by Justin Trudeau. Since then, the Liberals have had a meteoric rise, some of which is explicable by the replacement of the awful Trudeau with the seemingly less-awful Mark Carney. That change was necessary for a Liberal victory, but not even close to sufficient. What truly fueled the party’s rise and was both necessary and sufficient for its win were the actions of one man: Donald J. Trump. Since winning his second term last November, no country has come under more harsh criticism, rhetorical attack, or direct antagonism from the president than our northern neighbors. China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico have all gotten far kinder treatment than have the Canadians. Trump has routinely threatened annexation, which, even in jest, is deeply insulting and antagonistic to our neighbors. He has lambasted Ottawa as more complicit with fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration than Mexico City, which is simply farcical. Worst of all, he has leveled obscenely punitive tariffs on Canada, seriously harming their economy, despite the fact that we have a solid trade deal that he himself negotiated.
These actions shifted the entire election. The previously-critical issues of housing costs, carbon taxes, cultural wokeness, energy production, and more were all discarded like month-old leftovers. The only issue of any real import to the Canadian public became the fact that its larger neighbor was engaged in what looked like a crusade against their entire nation, seeking dominion over it, whether that be economic or political. For a people as proud as Canadians, this was a shot across the bow that necessitated a response. And the Liberals were best positioned to capitalize on this rampant anti-US sentiment, both because they have been traditionally less favorable to Washington than the Conservatives and because the smaller parties are unable to claim the mantle of nationalism, even if cynically.
Poilievre, who shares some of the policy predilections of the Republican Party – especially on culture, energy, economics (traditionally understood, at least), and foreign affairs – was put between a rock and a hard place. If he rightly opposed the Trumpian tariffs and rhetoric, he would be seen as piggybacking on the Liberal cause, while if he didn’t, he’d have lost in a landslide. Canadian Liberal elites, particularly in the Trudeau era, have been almost anti-patriotic, denigrating Canada as a genocidal settler colony; the only possible way for them to cynically and successfully wrap themselves in the flag would be in opposition to a bullying America. Parties like BQ and the NDP simply do not have the ability to play the patriotism card due to their size and issue sets – BQ being a semi-separatist Quebecois party and the NDP being antagonistic to the very idea of a patriotic Canada. The Liberals were able to use this issue to win the middle and soak up the losses of the smaller parties, putting them over the top. And Trump handed it to them for no gain on our end at all. There was simply no winning hand to play for Poilievre in this artificial environment.
Those who wish to excuse Trump here generally claim that Canadian voters acted irrationally in focusing on Trump’s bluster. This is a ridiculous assertion. It is totally reasonable for Canadians to be extremely angry and concerned over the rhetoric and policy that has been emanating from the White House for the past 100 days. When a larger neighbor becomes belligerent – which is absolutely how the Trump team has treated Ottawa – and does real damage to your national economy and potentially to your personal livelihood, you get upset. It is not irrational or an example of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ to treat such actions and words seriously and vote accordingly. For Canadians, the US relationship is existentially important, both for economics and security. Causing that relationship to come into real question is going to make people very mad. And they are going to vote in a way that makes that anger felt. Such a choice is entirely rational and in keeping with the existential nature of the issues at hand. And if we’re arguing over irrational voting behaviors, the United States does not exactly have a leg to stand on; after all, we did elect Donald Trump not once, but twice – almost exclusively on the basis of emotion.
The hypocrisy of the MAGA argument is also extremely frustrating, for two main reasons. First, the idea that Canadians should have just laughed off these clear threats is truly rich coming from a group that lionizes Donald Trump, the most fickle and egocentric president we’ve ever had. Trump threw a hissy fit and cratered a potential US-Ukraine deal because Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t wear a suit to the White House. He refused to even countenance the idea that he fairly lost the 2020 election (note: he did), bringing down two potential GOP senators in Georgia along with him out of sheer stubbornness. He stripped his own former officials of security protection in the face of serious Iranian assassination plots because he was mad at them. Surely people who overlook these toddler-esque tantrums should have some sympathy for a nation dealing with much worse, but they don’t. Next, there’s the contradictory claims about Trump’s foreign influence. MAGA backers argue simultaneously that the president is so powerful he can end intractable conflicts in Ukraine and Israel through sheer willpower and force a reset of the entire global trading system, but also that his actions and rhetoric are so inconsequential that it makes no sense for foreign populations to consider them when they vote. Which one is it: is Trump weak or strong? He cannot be both at the same time; he isn’t a theoretical cat trapped in a theoretical box.
Well, so what if the Liberal victory in Canada is largely attributable to Trump? Why should anyone in America care about how Canadians vote? For those of us who have Canadian heritage or family – my forebears have been in Canada since the 1630s – the answer is obvious. But what about other Americans who don’t share those direct connections? There are a few reasons they should care. Canada is the closest nation to America when it comes to culture, history, and heritage. We share the same Anglosphere roots, the same basic history of continental expansion and growth, the same general cultural touchstones and affinities, and even the same sports leagues. We should want our neighbors to prosper, not fail; we should especially want that when we are so intrinsically linked and historically friendly. But in terms of hard-nosed American interests, the issue is even more clear-cut. No nation on Earth is more important to the security and prosperity of the United States than Canada. We share the longest undefended border on the planet. We are one of each other’s top trading partners. We rely on a secure Canada to maintain our own security posture – something that will become even more important as the Arctic rises as a geopolitical theater – and project force abroad. We could obtain Greenland tomorrow and it would not come close to making up for an insecure or potentially hostile Canada.
And that is why a Conservative victory was so important. Canadian Conservatives are not American conservatives; they are not nearly as antagonistic to government largesse, they do not share some of the same cultural concerns we do, and they are often softer in their image. But that does not mean that they are not conservative as such, and it certainly does not mean that they are not the best realistic option for a governing party in Canada. American conservatives should not make the perfect the enemy of the good here. Liberals have been a disaster for Canada: stagnating their economy, reducing their ability to export energy (often coming to us for refining), cozying up with enemies like China, and destroying the very national pride that has always been a hallmark of the Great White North. Conservatives have better policy on basically every single issue that should matter to both Americans and Canadians. And they are trapped in an uphill battle against the Laurentian elite of Canadian politics, far more of a challenge than Republicans face against progressives or Democrat elites here. American politicians, particularly GOP ones, should be doing everything in their power to get a friendly government elected in Canada. Instead, our Republican president has done everything in his power to do the opposite, based on some ridiculous economic ideas and the idea that playing to the domestic base is all that matters.
But all is not lost – yet. There are two possible futures that can come from this electoral outcome: one bad, one good.
To make it fit with Liberal policy, let’s call the bad future the MAiD outcome. (If you didn’t know, MAiD stands for Medical Assistance in Dying, basically assisted suicide; this has become a major issue in Canada, as it has been offered to everyone from disabled people to those with expensive health issues.) If the Liberals maintain their hold on power for at least another several years, Poilievre is defenestrated from Conservative leadership, and Canadian conservatism fractures into internecine conflict, Canada as a national project may be doomed. The groundwork for this outcome was laid under Trudeau, with Liberal politicians arguing that Canada was a “post-national state” that was founded on explicit genocidal ideology and denigrating the country’s history at every turn. Carney, despite his campaigning as a non-Trudeau Liberal, will certainly govern like his predecessor given his past statements and the advisers he has surrounded himself with. That means more unfettered immigration, surpassing the nation’s ability to integrate the newcomers. It means more expensive housing, economic stagnation, and crippling climate change actions. It means a weaker national defense, a hostility to Israel and Canada’s Jews, and greater engagement with the Chinese Communist Party. Several more years of that failed policy may be too much for Canada to overcome and fully reverse, even if Conservatives end up winning again in a few years’ time.
There is a better possibility, however. The Liberals, in spite of their electoral win, do not have a governing majority. They will be a minority government that is forced to rely on smaller, more radical parties to stay in power. The consequences of bad Liberal policy, combined with the instability of the government, could lead to snap elections far sooner than the usual four to five years. In such an election, with Poilievre at the head of the Conservatives and doubling down on the successful message of this campaign, the Liberals would have a serious chance of losing. Barring further idiocy emanating from the White House – a big ask, I know – there could once again be a strong Conservative government that has the mandate to turn Canada around and restore it to the prideful and stalwart nation that it has been for nearly 200 years now. Those of us who care deeply about our brethren north of the border should be fiercely hoping for this outcome. Not only would it be better for Canada, it would be better for America as well.
That video is from Poilievre’s last pre-election rally, in Ottawa, Canada’s capital city. It is a perfect encapsulation of the Canada that I know and love, and not only because they actually used the correct lyrics to the national anthem (Trudeau changed them to be more “inclusive.”) This is the Canadian spirit in fact and in history. It is the Canada of brave warriors who have fought manfully in wars that were not often their own. It is the Canada of humble pioneers who tamed the land and made it productive and prosperous. It is the Canada of proud patriots who love their country, warts and all. It is the Canada that Canadians deserve. And, hopefully, it is the Canada that they will one day reclaim and reinvigorate. As an American who loves our northern neighbors, I fully support them in that quest. You should, too.