March 8, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
An amusement park ride is not an appropriate metaphor for military ceasefires or economic trade wars. Both affect the lives, hopes, and aspirations of other image-bearers of God in profoundly consequential ways. The way we discuss and address these issues should reflect this seriousness. Yet, the roller coaster analogy is the most fitting description of the past few weeks.
We're still on the ride.
Last Friday morning, it seemed that the United States had brokered a deal to ensure a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Following the Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that afternoon, there was no deal, and the United States was pausing military support for Ukraine. Fourteen world leaders gathered in London last Sunday to discuss the situation. Later in the week, President Zelensky wrote a letter of contrition praising President Trump’s “strong leadership” in an effort to get a deal with the White House. As of President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, it appeared that a ceasefire was likely to materialize.
The Canada-US tariff ride was similarly adventurous. On Monday, President Trump announced that the tariffs were going ahead, with both tariffs and counter-tariffs taking effect on Tuesday. The stock markets crumbled, with The Wall Street Journal editorializing that the levies were “the ‘dumbest’ in history.” By Wednesday, President Trump was being “reasonable and fair,” deciding to delay the automotive tariffs until early April. By Thursday, he’d widened tariff exemptions.
On either file, the momentum is propelling us forward with a force toward future lurches and wild swings that next will inevitably provoke a new wave of responses. Politics is happening in abnormal ways that defy the usual rhythms.
It’s too early for definitive conclusions; the outcomes for either file remain uncertain. Instead, I’d like to share a few reflections that have emerged from numerous conversations over the past weeks with colleagues, as well as my business and political friends.
Disruption achieves US objectives almost as effectively as tariffs. A few weeks ago, I tried to provide perspective on why President Trump had a logical economic case for implementing tariffs, contrary to much of the economic advice dominating the news. Trump has argued that short-term tariff pain is necessary to force manufacturing and other jobs out of Canada and Mexico and into the United States. It isn’t just the tariffs themselves but rather the threat of tariffs and the uncertainty about what else President Trump might do which accomplish that objective. I’ve heard of multiple decisions to invest capital and undertake projects in the United States. In contrast, parallel decisions to invest in Canada are being put on hold “until this all sorts itself out.” The constant headline-grabbing statements like "tariffs are on next Tuesday” followed by “well, let’s hold on for a month” create political uncertainty, which is an economic advantage for the United States. The “on again/off again” nature of what’s happening isn’t really negotiations but an economic war tactic in its own right.
Don’t forget about the everyday impacts. Political, industry, and business leaders certainly feel stress from having to make public decisions with significant consequences for many people. I mention this sincerely, respecting the genuine angst many have expressed as they strive for sustainable, long-term solutions. Even so, it is the ordinary worker and citizen who feels particularly powerless in the face of broader forces. Their stress is often underreported. While matching tariffs “dollar for dollar” and imposing retaliatory tariffs generates competing “tough guy” rhetoric, consumers, many of whom are grappling with an affordability crisis, ultimately bear the cost. Tariffs affect consumers in the importing country as prices rise. They affect the workers of the exporting company as demand decreases. Retaliatory tariffs merely shift which country’s consumers and workers feel the effects, but they all belong to the same group. There is just one bank account. Whether our expenses rise or our incomes fall, the net effect is on our bottom line, influencing the groceries we can buy, the rent or mortgage we can cover, or the educational costs we can afford for our children. Much of this is overlooked in discussions of tariffs and taxes, GDP and interest rates, trade surpluses and subsidies, and other macroeconomic terms. Those numbers are real and significant, but they fail to convey the full impact of this roller-coaster ride on personal finances.
Freedom and order are being redefined. All sides use language that supports freedom and presumes it is inherently positive. There isn’t enough space here to delve into the fine details, but freedom includes economic freedom, and any barrier to trade—like a tariff—limits individual market choices. The principle of free trade and free markets, while never absolute and influenced by other factors, is a key element of freedom. President Trump is pursuing a political strategy to achieve government-desired outcomes instead of relying on freedom to meet his economic goals. To accomplish this, he is willing to overlook agreements he signed (justifying these with objective mistruths), leveraging his economic and political power. Even those who view his objectives as worthwhile must acknowledge that his methods fly in the face of the historic notions of freedom and order—honouring one’s word and agreements—that have been fundamental to Western democracy. This fight is not a fight for freedom.
Global order is being redefined. There is little doubt that the China–United States fault line is central to understanding the broader narrative. A few weeks ago, I noted how Trump’s threats regarding Panama, Greenland, and Canada could be interpreted in the context of this trade rivalry and security, particularly concerning emerging trade routes. Some have tried to convince me that President Trump’s apparent appeasement of Russia is, in fact, a strategy to make Moscow more dependent on the United States and ultimately compel it to choose Washington over Beijing as its primary ally. I remain skeptical.
Character and morality cannot be overlooked. I can propose political and economic motives that might explain the various actions of the US government in general (and I do hold the congressmen, senators, and American citizens responsible for their part in enabling this behaviour since they’re not using the political levers they hold to constrain their president), but the personal characteristics of the president also matter. I find his haughty, disrespectful manner of speaking about others an offence to the offices they hold and the countries they represent, not to mention how such behaviour diminishes the United States and its presidency. President Trump’s rather loose reliance on anything that resembles objective truth is troubling. My Trump-supporting friends (including many Christians) tell me that I’ve been in and around politics long enough that I should just get over it; this is merely the master dealmaker using his superior negotiating skills to gain an advantage. They suggest I should celebrate what they consider to be the positive outcomes he is achieving for his country rather than quibble over his bellicosity.
I have differed with them for some time, but the past few weeks have intensified the discussion. As we’ve experienced the ups and downs of ceasefire and trade policy, there has been an alarming focus on self-interest and religious rhetoric. In the State of the Union address, President Trump claimed that God spared his life during the assassination attempt so he could make America great again, implying a divine endorsement of his policies, actions, and rhetoric. A statue of a goat is on display at Mar-a-Lago (supporting an anti-trafficking initiative, which is undoubtedly a good cause) and is covered with replica American currency featuring Trump’s image and the slogan “In Trump We Trust” instead of the usual “In God We Trust." President Trump shared a video on his social media promoting his proposal to transform Gaza into a vacation-style Riviera, which includes a statue of himself reminiscent of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in Babylon.
I do understand that those of us historically more skeptical of President Trump’s policies and tactics will be quicker to take offence at these “symbolic” matters than those who have supported him and his agenda. But in a newsletter designed to equip Christian leaders to deal with the issues of the day, it seems appropriate to ask at least where the line needs to be drawn. At what point do the deference and accolades President Trump seems to crave (a reminder, that part of President Zelensky’s Oval Office offence was that he did not express appropriate gratitude to President Trump) become a form of idolatry? I purposely phrase it as a question, recognizing that the political and economic issues being dealt with are complex and the tactics employed by leaders difficult to discern from afar. I cannot know President Trump’s heart or mind.
But this is no amusement park ride. The political and economic consequences matter for billions of people globally. I understand that we owe different loyalties to our families and to people in our own countries than we do to citizens of other countries. Still, as we make local decisions, we do so conscious of the effects that these have on others who are fellow created image-bearers of God. And while the right ordering of our loves might prompt legitimate debate and differences of opinion, Christians of all political persuasions need to struggle with how to apply these truths in a way that seeks to love God above all (meaning that there are some lines we should not cross, regardless of the political justifications) and our neighbour as ourselves.
The Captain and Compass Search
The present uncertainty regarding Canadian domestic and trade affairs will not be resolved until after the federal election. Until then, this Insights section will provide a brief punditry take on “the week that was.”
Writing a blurb to be published the day before the announcement of the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada means I can speculate, but I don’t have many hard facts at my disposal. The voting process has had hiccups, but most anticipate it will be Mark Carney's coronation. The federal election campaign, which until a few months ago was expected to feature Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre's coronation and a rejection of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has shifted into a contest over whether Carney or Poilievre inspires more confidence as the Canadian leader best equipped to deal with President Trump. The new Liberal leader will have to make significant tactical decisions almost immediately. Most expect him to swiftly swear in a new cabinet, make a series of substantive policy announcements to define his leadership, and then call an election. All of this would happen before the House of Commons, where he currently does not hold a seat, is scheduled to reconvene in late March. Some believe he may strike a deal with one of the opposition parties, presumably the NDP, to pass defining legislation addressing the tariff threat and possibly even govern for a few months or even until the scheduled fixed election date in October. There’s also a faction suggesting we could see the election called next week, with Prime Minister Trudeau remaining in place as a caretaker until after the ballots are counted. As Carney is focused on riding the momentum of his leadership campaign, he also needs to stop the Conservatives from using their war chest to fund negative ads that will create an unfavourable public image for him. Significant in all of this is the fact that these narratives pose considerable challenges for the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. A two-way Liberal-Conservative contest likely means vote splits that favour the Liberals at the expense of a weak NDP and Bloc.
WHAT I’M READING
Peace In Our Time?
It appears that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may be ready to sign an American-brokered peace deal. That news comes a week after he was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House over disagreements with US President Donald Trump over the issue. The deal would involve sharing Ukraine’s critical mineral wealth with the United States. That would be a smart move according to Drieu Godefridi at the staunchly conservative Gatestone Institute. But the editorial board at the Globe and Mail sees the whole situation as a sign that “Pax Americana is over.”
Leave Canada Alone
My colleague Brian Dijkema is calling on the Trump administration to stop fighting with Canada over trade and to drop its annexation talk. Writing in Commonplace, a magazine run by American Compass, Brian notes that the real winner in all this turmoil is Chinese President Xi Jinping, “who has to be smiling like Winnie the Pooh with his hands in a honey pot at the sight of his enemies fighting amongst themselves.”
Cloudy Days for Computers
Storing information “on the cloud”—and using cloud-based software—is now the norm for many businesses and for many of us in our private lives. Everything from financial information to vacation photos ends up stored there. Even business email and phone systems depend on cloud computing instead of their own servers. With two companies controlling up to 85 percent of the cloud market, internet technology specialist Phil A. McBride warns that the potential damage from an outage or hacking attack is far greater than most of us imagine.
Journos Covering Lies
Peter Menzies has an important piece describing the media's failure to make necessary distinctions between objectively verifiable truth and mere allegations. He was commenting on the coverage of Mark Carney’s claim that he was not on the board of Brookfield when the decision was made to move the investment company’s headquarters to the United States even though public records clearly showed he was. Much of the media coverage reported the story regarding Conservative “allegations.” Menzies concludes that the story was “a big fail for many journos who focus on the source of a never-denied accusation instead of the truth of it.”
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Depends on Dependence
Which US states are most likely to be hurt by American tariffs on Canadian imports? Montana tops this list with 92 percent of its imports coming from Canada, according to the Visual Capitalist. Maine isn’t too far behind with 70% of its imports coming from us. I would guess that energy accounts for a lot of the imports—oil and gas in the west, hydroelectric power in the east. Factories can be moved in response to tariffs, of course, but the extraction of oil, gas, and hydroelectric power has to happen where those resources are found.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Running for the Palindromes
“A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!” cleverly merges history with wordplay to produce one of the most well-known palindromes in the English language. You can read it backward or forward or even check out Wikipedia’s list of notable palindromes—you’ll be hard-pressed to find any capturing form, meaning, and playfulness like the Panama example.
David McCullough adapted it into a book and a movie, but I plan to explore Panama in person next week. It’s a vacation cruise that my wife and I planned with friends well ahead of Liberal leadership announcements or tariff Tuesdays. There will be much to discuss while I’m away, so two of my colleagues have volunteered to steer the Insights ship into your inbox port each of the next two Saturdays.
It would create wordplay-worthy symmetry if their names were Bob or Hannah, Otto or Elle, but that’s asking too much. While I am cruising the deep blue sea, they will set their radars on the various civic happenings and share their thoughts on the usual Saturday schedules. Thanks in advance, Michael and Brian. Enjoy their perspectives. I hope to be back in the captain’s chair on the 29th.
Till then.