Ivan Kalmar is a professor at the University of Toronto’s Department of Anthropology and Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. He is the author of White But Not Quite: Central Europe’s Illiberal Revolt.
Canada’s recent federal election has brought into sharp focus the fact that Canada and the United States are not simply two different countries. They also represent two very different ideas – metaphors for different moral and political visions of how humans should relate to each other, to those who are different, and to the environment.
The boundary between these visions does not coincide with the geographic border; it cuts across North America. There are “Canadians” in America and “Americans” in Canada. Canadians will routinely say that multiculturalism is central to their self-image, while the United States is “a melting pot” – a place that expects people of all races, colours and creeds to dissolve their heritage in order to become American. But while there are many Canadian values, as described by Prime Minister Mark Carney when he celebrated his election victory last month, including “kindness as a virtue,” “cultural institutions” such as the public broadcaster, and “universal public health care,” many Americans hold these values as well. Many strive to have the same kind of public services that most Canadians are proud of. Bernie Sanders, for example, has long argued for a health-care system modeled on Canada’s.
In both countries, what “Canada” stands for is a liberal democracy that is inclusive of people of all races, ethnicities, languages, genders and sexual orientations. And in both countries, “America” under Trump now stands for exclusivist, anti-migrant nationalism and a return to patriarchal gender relations. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose authoritarian rule has been publicly acknowledged by Donald Trump and his entourage as a model, calls this an “illiberal democracy.” Illiberal movements rightly point to the many failures of the liberal democratic West, and as a remedy, they propose economic nationalism. In America, this means hoping (in vain) for the restoration of economic security by restricting foreign competition through tariffs. It also means removing and keeping out migrants, believing that this will bring investments and jobs back to the country and make it “great again” for those who “purely” belong.
In short, “Canada” as an idea stands today for liberal democracy, and “America” for illiberalism. This – not the trade balance or fentanyl – is the real reason Mr. Trump wants to do away with Canada; he also wants to do away with what “Canada” represents, in his own country.
Today’s contest between “America” and “Canada,” then – as ideas and not only countries – is the North American arena of a broader conflict between liberal democracy and illiberalism. In this global struggle, Canada has come to be the bane of the reactionary illiberal right.
My first awareness of this came during my research on illiberalism in Poland during the so-called “European migration crisis” five or six years ago. A parish priest who was the spiritual advisor of a militant Catholic nationalist youth association was interviewed by one of my research assistants, who had himself been a member. Justifying sentiments against Muslim migration to Poland, the clergyman exclaimed, “we are not in Canada,” using the country as a metaphor for multiculturalism.
Since then, I have noted a rise of negative portrayals of Canada on the internet. There are many videos on YouTube and on social media discouraging others from moving to Canada due to cultural differences, high prices, or intolerable crime (false); some of these concerns are real, while others are manufactured. I have even seen videos about Canada’s terrible economy and the disadvantages of moving there that are scripted in Spanish and other languages. This could well be a part of a concerted campaign of anti-Canadian propaganda spread from the United States or, perhaps, like many illiberal ideas, from Russia; I am currently researching this possibility. But regardless of its origins, the idea of Canada being “broken,” in Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s words, owes much to homegrown, Canadian illiberal opinion makers. After Mr. Trump’s assaults on Canada, Liberals were able to seize on this kind of Conservative criticism as unjustified and unpatriotic – and the election showed that millions of Canadians agreed.
Canadians understand that the challenge now is to preserve not only the nation of Canada, but also the idea of “Canada,” which remains radically opposed to that of Mr. Trump’s “America.” Mr. Carney, a respected former head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, seemed, to many voters, the one best qualified to do the job. We will see now whether he can defend Canada – both the country and the idea.