September 27, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
It’s not so easy to define the word “America” anymore. In fact, the concepts of America and the American way are being redefined before our eyes. It can be tough to see that this is what’s happening when we’re bombarded with news from around the globe.
My media feeds this past week have been abuzz about the potential long-term impacts of current events. I’ve read about:
The language of all this analysis suggests that historians will look back to current events as a potential hinge point. Global power politics, military movements, and martyrdom narratives appear to be intersecting in ways that may alter the emerging world order.
I’m not convinced, though, that this is the main takeaway from the week’s events.
Firstly, combining selected media analyses is not a solid methodology for making considered assessments. I could skeptically compile a similar selection of opposite analyses to dismiss the events of the past week as inconsequential.
Secondly, if we put the week’s news into context, while they don’t become insignificant, they also aren’t necessarily monumental changes to the global order. Consider with me three stories from the past week.
So, if this week’s events aren’t as monumental as they might seem initially, what really matters—and what’s the connection with redefining America?
Permit me a brief detour in answering that question. On Wednesday, Raymond Blake was awarded the prestigious Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing for his book Canada’s Prime Ministers and the Shaping of a National Identity. This book happens to be my current read, and news of the prize got me reflecting on this week’s news in light of Blake’s argument that prime ministers are really “identity entrepreneurs.” Blake gets into the fine detail, but the core of his argument is that the content of prime ministers’ speeches—the “arguments, rhetoric, symbols, and stories” leaders tell—is essential. Using illustrations from William Lyon Mackenzie King to Stephen Harper, he argues that “although members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear about them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” Neither the term “communion” nor “identity entrepreneurs” quite captures it for me, but I understand what Blake seems to be driving at: identity is what unites us in sharing the adjective “Canadian” and allows us to recognize others who share that identity, even when we disagree with them. The identity narrative is the road on which words need to drive to translate into nation-defining actions.
If there is one thing the events of the past week have exposed, it’s that American identity is changing. Had similar events occurred a decade or more ago, I would have confidently described the American responses, even amid right-left disagreement. I knew that America stood for freedom over authoritarianism, for order and stability over provocation, for justice and respect balanced with mercy and compassion. I knew that Americans cherished truth, valued compassion and forgiveness, and were seen to be a reliable ally and friend to many (but certainly not every country) around the globe. Of course, there would have been divided political opinion then as there is now, but those divisions took place within a framework in which “American values” had some common definition. There would have been debate on all of these issues, but those on both sides would have a sense that Russian authoritarianism was a threat, that Israel deserved support in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack against it, that the United States should respect treaties and international boundaries, and that Americans should seek justice, but not celebrate vengeance.
Today, none of the above assumptions applies within the debates of this past week. Those who watched the funeral of Charlie Kirk with sympathy faced a choice: embrace a narrative of forgiveness like that articulated by his widow, Erika, or live out of a narrative of retribution as many others demanded from the same stage. The assumptions we could make a decade or two ago about what united and divided conservatives versus liberals, Republicans versus Democrats, Christians versus secularists, authoritarians versus democrats—all within an American communion—no longer hold.
This week mattered but not in the immediate way that so much of the coverage suggests. I am quite uncertain that future historians will draw direct lines between the Kirk funeral or Mr. Trump’s changed tune on Russia and Ukraine and the events of next week or next month. What we’re watching unfold now, however, is that the story of what it means to be an American, both in terms of the character of the United States and how that country relates to the rest of the world, is being rewritten. The collective effect of many moments and decisions, like a steady stream of water, is changing the form of the rock.
Might it be that the coexistence of these contradictions from the same stage, without the country recognizing them as such, reveals something about America’s changing character? This isn’t just how those on opposite sides of the spectrum describe each other, but rather how those on the same side of the spectrum understand themselves. Many are intimidated into silence and instead try to explain away the contradictions in American character. The America I grew up with next door to Canada had the cultural strength to call out its contradictions and argue about them; that was its character. It knew how to live together amid differences and had a way to sort them out. That was the American way.
National narratives matter. Canada’s problem is that we haven’t been good at articulating our national narrative, and for too long, we’ve relied on a negative narrative about who we are not. We derive our identity in the context of our relationships with others. In the context of not being able to rely as much on a friendly United States, Canada is becoming more keen than usual to join international trends and do the things that might garner more acceptance there. I’m not sure that is ideal, but I understand how we get there. America had a more straightforward narrative, with distinct conservative and liberal versions, but it all seems much more ill-defined and inconsistent these days. Over the past decade, we’ve seen that narrative knocked down. But now, it’s much harder to build up something new.
It will take some time to gain greater clarity regarding what common definition of America will emerge. One way or the other, my guess is that historians will refer to our times, and even the events of this week, as being significant. In the midst of the trees, it’s hard to discern the forest. The actions of this week have forced us to watch the global understanding of what it means to be American evolve before our eyes.
WHAT I’M READING
The Canadian Perspective
United States Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra told a Halifax audience last week that he was disappointed in Canadians' use of “trade war” and “elbows up” language. He called it an “anti-American” campaign that does not help the two countries reach a new trade and security agreement. Meanwhile, former Democrat cabinet minister Pete Buttigieg told an Ottawa audience this week that he understood Canadian discomfort with the American positioning in recent months, suggesting that most Americans did not imagine “a moment like this.” The most recent Pollara poll suggests that 64% of Canadians do not trust US President Trump to live up to a new trade deal if it were negotiated. What this narrative overlooks, however, is the reality that Canada has not always been a reliable partner in fulfilling its commitments either. The most obvious example is Canada’s 2014 commitment to contribute to NATO defences by spending at least two percent of GDP on the military. We’ve never met that commitment, relying instead on our allies, especially the United States, to carry the load in this area.
Tolle, Legge
Bibliophiles are familiar with the Latin phrase "tolle, legge" (take up and read), featured in many places where good books are sold or stored. However, it appears that book reading is on the decline. James Marriott has an interesting Substack essay which both traces the changing influence of books over time and laments the dawn of “the post-literate society.” “If the reading revolution represented the greatest transfer of knowledge to ordinary men and women in history, the screen revolution represents the greatest theft of knowledge from ordinary people in history,” he writes.
Canada’s Pluralism Crisis
Over at The Hub, Rob Joustra warns that Canada is no longer an ideal case study for successful pluralism. He argues that the underlying covenantal framework on which pluralism relied has become unstable. “In order to do pluralism, in order to establish a relationship, we must know not only how to do it, or what is to be decided, but who is in the relationship,” Joustra writes. He also provides a valuable survey of too-often-overlooked Canadian history, describing how Canadians have gotten themselves into their present “hot mess.” “Canada has deficit-spent its bank of robust pluralism,” he writes. “Now the country must begin repaying with the hard work of deep dialogue, of foundational protections (and limits), and, finally, of revisiting its political poltergeists of institutional and constitutional reform.”
MEANINGFUL METRICS
As the federal finance minister prepares to present his budget on November 4, Abacus Data has released a poll that outlines what Canadians are expecting. The significance of such polls is not so much their accuracy, but rather that they provide a measurement of sorts of what political messaging has landed. Conservative Party supporters, who presumably would most favour spending cuts, are the least likely to expect that approach. Sixty-five percent of Canadians generally expect more spending on defence, while expectations are relatively low for something that will benefit families with kids, first-time homebuyers, or small businesses.
How the Liberal government will overcome its House of Commons seat deficit to pass the budget is a key question. The House of Commons seat count is as follows: 169 Liberals, 144 Conservatives, 22 Bloc Québécois, 7 NDP, and 1 Green (total 343). However, the Liberal Speaker only votes in the case of a tie, leaving the government with 168 votes in its favour. If all opposition parties voted against the budget, it would fail to pass by 174-168. This means if six MPs skipped the budget vote, it would end in a tie, in which case the Speaker could vote with the government to pass the budget bill and prevent the government from falling. Before the introduction of absentee voting for MPs during COVID, arranging for MPs to miss a vote due to travel or sickness was a convenient way to cover their absence. However, the House of Commons hybrid voting process will effectively require transparency regarding any deals made for MPs to see the budget pass with the help of opposition no-shows.
TAKE IT TO-GO
A New York Post story suggests that an increasing number of American tourists are passing themselves off as Canadians. It may be unpatriotic, but I’ll admit the flag-jacking of those baseball players wearing Yankee pinstripes currently troubles me more. Mind you, flags and baseball can get complicated, and patriotism comes with an asterisk. Of the 47 players who have been officially part of the Blue Jays roster this season, there is only one Canadian. However, for these purposes, we consider the 33 Americans, 12 South and Central Americans, and one Czech who wear the Blue Jays uniform (which includes a maple leaf) as ours. I suspect that at least 40 million Canadians believe this would be a good year for the misnamed “World Series” championship to be awarded to a team outside the United States.
The Jays’ patriotic aspirations have been missing a few pitches lately. And fans have paid more attention to the numbers in the standings than to citizenship counts. It’s tied as I write this; I hope it looks a bit more favourable by the time you read it. Admittedly, losing a five-game lead in just over a week is an alarming flag-pas, but there is still enough time for some timely Blue Jays hits and Yankees strike outs that might thwart their flag-stealing attempts. To fail for the Blue Jays would mean penance instead of pennants. Regardless, from the perspective of this Blue Jays fan at least, Yankees fans are welcome to travel through as many departure gates as they wish, put as many Maple Leaf decals on their luggage as they wish, and even enjoy some waffles in Europe with (tariff-free) Canadian maple syrup. I am rooting for the boys in blue (regardless of their passports) to bring a World Series home to Canada. The playoffs begin this week. “Ok, Blue Jays! Let’s play ball!”
Until next week.