Despite genuine trade issues, former President Trump’s efforts to evoke anger have failed to resonate in Canada, where locals dismiss his tactics as “nuts.”
Subscribe
Analysis and Opinions
International Politics
Policy Analysis
Trade Agreements
Froma Harrop: Trump’s reach stops cold at the Canadian border
Key Takeaways:
- Former President Trump’s influence does not extend into Canada.
- Genuine trade issues exist between the U.S. and Canada.
- Trump’s attempts to incite anger over trade have failed in Canada.
- Canadians view Trump’s tactics as “nuts.”
- The article highlights the limits of Trump’s approach internationally.
Trump’s Reach Stops at the Canadian Border
Former President Donald Trump’s influence, once a dominant force in American politics, appears to halt abruptly at the Canadian border. Despite ongoing trade tensions between the United States and Canada, his efforts to stir unrest and “crank up the rage machine” have failed to produce results among Canadians.
Genuine Trade Issues Persist
There are undeniable trade issues between the neighboring nations. Disputes over tariffs, trade agreements, and economic policies have created friction. However, these genuine concerns have not been enough to ignite the anger that Trump seems eager to provoke.
Failed Attempts to Incite Anger
Trump’s tactics, often characterized by bold rhetoric and aggressive posturing, have not resonated with the Canadian populace. His attempts to amplify discord over trade have been met with indifference. According to commentary by Froma Harrop, “Trump’s efforts to crank up the rage machine have failed to produce results.”
Canadian Perspective: ‘They Are Nuts’
The Canadian response to Trump’s provocations has been dismissive. Locals view his actions as excessive and unwarranted. Harrop notes that “to locals, they are nuts,” reflecting a sentiment that his tactics are out of touch with Canadian attitudes and values.
Implications for Cross-Border Relations
The inability of Trump’s approach to gain traction in Canada highlights a significant limitation in his influence. It underscores a difference in how political strategies effective in the U.S. may not translate internationally. This dynamic poses questions about the future of U.S.-Canada relations and the effectiveness of aggressive political tactics on the global stage.
