By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, and his suggestion that Canada become the 51st state, overshadows the significant negative impact these tariffs would have on American consumers. Trudeau highlights that increased costs for goods like oil and gas would harm U.S. citizens, countering Trump’s assertions of trade deficits and Canadian subsidies. Canada has prepared retaliatory tariffs on various U.S. goods should the threat materialize, mirroring previous responses to similar actions. Despite Trump’s claims of U.S. energy independence, Canada remains a crucial supplier of oil to the United States.
Read the original article here
Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau’s plea for US consumers to consider the potential harm caused by Trump’s tariff threats feels like a drop in a rapidly rising ocean. The timing, it seems, is less than ideal; many have already started purchasing products from outside the US, a move driven by anticipation of the economic fallout. This situation disproportionately affects those with fewer resources; the poor, as many have pointed out, will bear the brunt of the economic consequences, a reality that appears to be intentionally engineered.
The claim that Mexico paid for the wall and China will pay for tariffs is demonstrably false. These statements, while gaining traction with some, are demonstrably false and illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how trade and international relations work.
The broad strokes of a blanket 25% tariff on all imports obscure a more nuanced reality of US-Canada trade. The economic interdependence between the two countries is vast; billions of dollars in goods and services traverse the border daily. For 36 US states, Canada represents their top export destination.
This economic entanglement is further highlighted by the fact that Canada supplies a significant portion (25%) of the US’s fuel consumption. Canada’s response—retaliatory tariffs on US steel, oranges, and other key exports—creates a vicious cycle where both countries face rising gas prices, increased costs for various goods, and economic hardship for industries on both sides of the border.
This entire situation looks suspiciously like a well-executed distraction tactic. While initially successful in deflecting attention from other issues, the potential damage to both countries’ economies is considerable. The reality is that we had warned about these potential risks and far more. But it seems to have fallen on deaf ears; the warnings were widely disregarded by a large segment of the population. This is concerning.
The suggestion that appealing to reason and common sense would sway Trump’s supporters seems like a naive hope at this point. A foreign leader’s warnings, especially one considered liberal by the majority of Trump’s base, are unlikely to change minds already entrenched in their belief system. Many feel that any attempt at reasoned discourse is futile; those who support Trump aren’t receptive to facts or evidence that contradict their views.
The deeply entrenched partisan divide makes rational dialogue almost impossible. The 2020 election results demonstrated a lack of critical engagement with complex issues; the election of a convicted felon speaks volumes about the current political climate. It feels like appeals to reason are falling on deaf ears in a post-reality world where facts and logic are often disregarded.
Some believe the situation is irreversible. The current climate is volatile, with many seemingly eager to seek out conflict. However, a pragmatic approach suggests taking personal steps to mitigate the incoming economic impact. Canadians, for example, are opting to buy domestic products wherever possible to support their own economy. This could be a potential path forward to safeguard against impending harm.
The idea that Trudeau is engaging in diplomacy with US consumers seems somewhat optimistic. Even assuming he is able to communicate with them, the reality is that many American consumers, particularly those in Trump’s base, lack the understanding of economic concepts to engage in this conversation meaningfully. Many are unaware of how tariffs work or their potential consequences. Some believe this attempt at dialogue is futile, a case of trying to explain advanced quantum physics to a toddler.
The current political climate leaves little room for rational debate. The overwhelming sentiment is that the damage has been done, and the best course of action is to adapt and mitigate the effects of the impending economic storm. However, even with higher prices, there’s a chance that many Americans might not recognize the connection to Trump’s policies. The possibility that even then, they might not change their belief system, highlights a disheartening level of political polarization. The situation is further complicated by those who actively deflect blame, citing faulty logic that places responsibility for the economic consequences on other countries.
In short, Trudeau’s warning, while well-intentioned, may be largely ineffective. The political landscape, already deeply divided and fueled by misinformation, is unlikely to change course. The only path forward is to adapt to the changes and hope that future elections bring a more reasoned approach to policy-making. The situation appears, unfortunately, to be spiraling out of control, leaving little hope for a near-term resolution.