Canada + USA in crisis but there are differences
This is not my (penned) article, but it gives a realistic opinion and an encouragement to look beyond the National Headlines of main stream media and realize that although both countries are jostling for a change to their economic positions that this situation has been in flux for a long time. It's just time for a reckoning to the benefit of everyone. Take a read.... Note again: This is not my opinion - just reporting for info.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Alasdair Roberts
Updated 21:07, Oct. 24, 2025 | Published 14:00, Oct. 24, 2025
Donald Trump has called off trade talks with Canada after the Ontario government ran an anti-tariff ad campaign. (File photo from October 13 by Suzanne Plunkett, Pool Photo via AP)
The United States is in crisis and, therefore, Canada is in crisis. These conjoined crises have common features. Both involve reimagining national strategy, and also questions of federalism. But the similarity ends there.
That the United States faces a “crisis of democracy” is widely acknowledged. It began in the early twenty-first century and accelerated after the global financial meltdown of 2007/08.
Americans are deeply polarized about what has gone wrong with the system and how to fix it. There is a red-state view and a blue-state view. The struggle in Washington has become brutal, as each camp seeks to execute its own vision of a new national strategy and obstruct execution of the alternative vision.
My own diagnosis of the current moment differs somewhat from both red and blue views. The American system as a whole is not in crisis. There are tens of thousands of governments (state, regional, local) in the US, and the overwhelming majority are working as they always have. This is largely a crisis of central institutions, which have proven incapable of managing polarization and are probably making it worse.
I have argued that this crisis is the unintended consequence of decades of centralizing reforms. The architecture of American federalism has changed significantly since the 1930s. The power of national government—Washington—has expanded. At the same time, power inside Washington has shifted, so that presidents are much more influential than they used to be.
This bipartisan project of centralization proceeded on the assumption that regional and ideological differences inside the US were fading away. If most people were on the same page, then it would be easier for Washington to make decisions on a broader range of topics. At the same time, people on the losing side of national elections would be unhappy but not distressed by the outcome.
The assumption of homogenization no longer holds, if it ever did. Regional and ideological differences are widening. In fact, they are stoked by centralization. Because so much power rests at the centre, national elections are immensely consequential. Rising polarization has produced gridlock in Congress, more attempts by presidents to act unilaterally, and increased arbitrariness and unpredictability in federal policy making.
The tumult in American foreign policy over the past decade—on questions of trade, defence, alliances, and support for international institutions—is symptomatic of a federal system whose current design is mismatched to the realities of American society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Alasdair Roberts
Updated 21:07, Oct. 24, 2025 | Published 14:00, Oct. 24, 2025
Donald Trump has called off trade talks with Canada after the Ontario government ran an anti-tariff ad campaign. (File photo from October 13 by Suzanne Plunkett, Pool Photo via AP)
The United States is in crisis and, therefore, Canada is in crisis. These conjoined crises have common features. Both involve reimagining national strategy, and also questions of federalism. But the similarity ends there.
That the United States faces a “crisis of democracy” is widely acknowledged. It began in the early twenty-first century and accelerated after the global financial meltdown of 2007/08.
Americans are deeply polarized about what has gone wrong with the system and how to fix it. There is a red-state view and a blue-state view. The struggle in Washington has become brutal, as each camp seeks to execute its own vision of a new national strategy and obstruct execution of the alternative vision.
My own diagnosis of the current moment differs somewhat from both red and blue views. The American system as a whole is not in crisis. There are tens of thousands of governments (state, regional, local) in the US, and the overwhelming majority are working as they always have. This is largely a crisis of central institutions, which have proven incapable of managing polarization and are probably making it worse.
I have argued that this crisis is the unintended consequence of decades of centralizing reforms. The architecture of American federalism has changed significantly since the 1930s. The power of national government—Washington—has expanded. At the same time, power inside Washington has shifted, so that presidents are much more influential than they used to be.
This bipartisan project of centralization proceeded on the assumption that regional and ideological differences inside the US were fading away. If most people were on the same page, then it would be easier for Washington to make decisions on a broader range of topics. At the same time, people on the losing side of national elections would be unhappy but not distressed by the outcome.
The assumption of homogenization no longer holds, if it ever did. Regional and ideological differences are widening. In fact, they are stoked by centralization. Because so much power rests at the centre, national elections are immensely consequential. Rising polarization has produced gridlock in Congress, more attempts by presidents to act unilaterally, and increased arbitrariness and unpredictability in federal policy making.
The tumult in American foreign policy over the past decade—on questions of trade, defence, alliances, and support for international institutions—is symptomatic of a federal system whose current design is mismatched to the realities of American society.
70-79, M
