This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Tag: Donald Trump
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
The federal election has been a busy time for anyone involved in politics, media and column writing. With the readers’ permission, I decided to have a little fun and do something different.
I used to enjoy delving into the world of creative writing. Did it a fair bit when I was in grade school and high school. In many ways, it served as an early training ground for what I currently do today.
A few weeks ago, I happened to come across an old column I wrote back in 2019. A couple of editors read it, appeared to enjoy it – but were never able to publish it. I’ve always regretted that it never saw the light of day. So, I decided to change this. I went through the original version, souped it up a bit et voilà.
May I present A Tale of Two Prime Ministers.
********************************************************
Charles Dickens’s classic novel, A Tale of Two Cities (1859). is set in London and Paris during the French Revolution. His book perfectly encapsulates this intriguing and difficult period in world history.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” the author wrote in the opening paragraph. “[I]t was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
Let’s fast forward to 2025. The curtain opens for A Tale of Two Prime Ministers, a Dickensian-like story involving Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper. The revelation of their long-standing friendship surprised the general public, but not to those who already knew in private. Both men are situated in Canada, and wanted to express their views on the “best of times” and “worst of times” in U.S. President Donald Trump’s America. They see a nation where concepts such as wisdom, foolishness, incredulity, good and evil are typically associated with the eye of the beholder.
The Liberal Chretien, who was Canada’s 20th prime minister (1993-2003), had a hot-and-cold relationship with the U.S. He kept Canada out of the war in Iraq, and there were periods of anti-Americanism in his party caucus related to then-President George W. Bush’s leadership that he allowed to run its course.
Chretien expressed some frustration with the U.S during Trump’s first term. In his book, My Stories, My Times, the former PM described Trump as “fanatical” and believed Americans made a “monumental error” when they elected him in 2016. (He probably feels the same way today.)
“I fear that Hillary [Clinton]’s defeat, and the arrival of the fanatical Trump, mark the true end of the American Empire,” Chretien wrote in one chapter. “You can understand why Aline and I are so happy to have the Clintons as friends, and almost as proud to be removed as far as possible from the unspeakable Donald Trump.”
The Conservative Harper, who was Canada’s 22nd prime minister (2006-2015), had a much friendlier relationship with former Presidents Bush and Barack Obama. He observed Trump and the U.S. rather differently than his Liberal counterpart.
Harper’s book, Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption, looked at the role of conservatism and populism in the U.S. and around the world. The starting point was Trump. He had “not impressed” Harper during the GOP presidential primaries and, like others, believed it was “obvious that Trump was not really a conservative and not even a Republican.” The would-be president’s stunning victory forced the author to reevaluate the political situation. He concluded that a “large proportion of Americans, including many American conservatives, voted for Trump because they are really not doing very well…in part, because of some of the policies we conservatives have advocated,” such as globalization.
Harper’s view was to “stop obsessing about the flaws of Trump and the Brexiteers,” and for conservatives to start using certain components of “present-day populism,” which led to the former’s electoral achievements, to their political advantage. Whether Trump was a successful or unsuccessful President, the former PM believed “the issues that gave rise to his candidacy are not going away.” In particular, he advocated for conservatives to rally behind “reformed democratic capitalism,” with renewed working-class opportunity and greater community cohesion” in today’s globalist-populist age. My guess is that he holds similar sentiments during Trump’s second presidential term.
Chretien and Harper obviously had (and still have) very different political ideologies and personal world views. They examined Trump’s presidency through unique political lenses. Which of their tales seemed more logical and realistic to support in this hyper-partisan political era?
Chretien touted a typical left-leaning sentiment about Trump: I don’t like him, I hate talking about him, and he’s destroying his country. He’s therefore following some of the negative sentiments Dickens described in his book: foolishness, incredulity, Darkness, despair and evil.
In contrast, Harper touted a uniquely right-leaning sentiment about Trump: I don’t agree with him, I recognize he’s figured out something about politics and society that others missed, and I believe it would be wise for conservatives to incorporate these concepts. He’s therefore following some of the positive sentiments Dickens described in his book: wisdom, belief, Light, hope and good.
Hence, the latter tale that Harper unveiled made more sense. Present-day populism and reformed democratic capitalism may not have long-lasting appeal with the modern electorate, but it seemed to be a wiser strategy in dealing with Trumpian-style politics than Chretien’s fire-and-brimstone approach.
One wonders if the conclusion of A Tale of Two Prime Ministers will ring similar to Carton’s unspoken final thoughts in A Tale of Two Cities, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” All will be revealed in time, good ladies and gentlemen.
Fin.
Michael Taube, a longtime newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
This content is restricted to subscribers
Many people are tired of hearing anything related to U.S. President Donald Trump and tariffs. While it’s no secret that he was going to use them in some fashion, no-one would have expected the insane rollercoaster ride we’ve been on.
Trump announced a series of tariffs during his first presidential administration, including 25 per cent on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum products between June 2018 to May 2019. Since his return to the White House, he’s imposed a 10 per cent tariff on China in February – and recently increased it to 20 per cent. He brought back the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum in February, setting them both at 25 per cent. He’s also threatened to impose 25 per cent tariffs on the European Union.
The biggest target of Trump’s tariffs has been in North America.
The President warned about forthcoming 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian and Mexican products last November. He originally planned for them to start on Feb. 1, but delayed things for one month after Canada and Mexico agreed to curb illegal immigration and illicit drugs like Fentanyl at the border. Trump wasn’t content with the progress made by either country, and implemented the tariffs on March 4. They were walked back on March 6 for all United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement products.
The tariff tête-à-tête between Canada and the U.S. has been the coup de grâce. We don’t have to go through all of the gory details, since there are many timelines available. It’s certainly been a strange saga that has featured Trump’s support for Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state and needling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by repeatedly referring to him as “Governor.”
In this week’s chapter, Ontario Premier Doug Ford went through with his 25 per cent tariffs on electricity for several northern U.S. states on Monday in spite of Trump’s decision to walk back his tariffs. Trump was furious, and announced on Truth Social on Tuesday that he had “instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.” This was scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday morning.
Ford continued to appear on U.S. TV networks on Tuesday to discuss his tariffs. He was also scheduled to speak with Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick. The meeting went rather well. “Secretary Lutnick agreed to officially meet with Premier Ford in Washington on Thursday, March 13 alongside the United States Trade Representative to discuss a renewed USMCA ahead of the April 2 reciprocal tariff deadline,” according to a joint statement. “In response, Ontario agreed to suspend its 25 per cent surcharge on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York and Minnesota.”
In turn, Trump decided not to go through with his doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs. “As you know, there’s a very strong man in Canada who said he was going to charge a surcharge or tariff on electricity coming into our country,” the President told reporters on Tuesday afternoon. “He has called, and he’s said he’s not going to do it. He’s not going to do it. And it would have been a very bad thing if he did, and he’s not going to do it. So, I respect that. But we were just informed that he’s not going to do that.” Although Trump never mentioned Ford by name, it was obvious who he was speaking about.
Will this sequence of events bring the tariff brouhaha to a conclusion? It’s difficult to say, but it’s the most promising development since Trump returned to Washington. We’ll know soon enough.
What would William McKinley have thought about Trump’s tariffs? He served as U.S. President from 1897-1901, and was the first American politician to use tariffs as a political tool.
When McKinley was a Republican House Representative from Ohio, he framed the Tariff Act of 1890, also known as the McKinley Tariff. It raised the import duty on items like tin-plate and wool to nearly 50 per cent. He believed it would help protect U.S. industry and blue collar workers from foreign companies and global competition. The McKinley Tariff was replaced by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act in 1894, which reduced the high tariff rate by a small margin and introduced America’s first peacetime income tax rate.
“McKinley assumed the presidency with a clear sense of his premier priority: establishing a Republican-style tariff policy that could meet the country’s revenue needs and boost economic growth,” Robert W. Merry wrote in President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. A tariff campaign was launched within two days of his inauguration. Yet, in an intriguing turn of events, things quickly shifted in a vastly different direction.
McKinley’s “trade philosophy had evolved” over the years. He realized “America’s burgeoning industrialism was outstripping American consumer demand,” and barriers to trade weren’t as desirable as they had been when he was in Congress. He saw a “dawning era with America playing a big role in global trade” and agreed with a bill initiated in the House Ways and Means Committee in which a “more moderate approach would serve the country better in the new industrial era of global markets.” McKinley “wasn’t a man of vision,” Merry noted, but he was a “man of perception who saw clearly the major developments of his time.”
If McKinley, the father of the U.S. tariff, could evolve into a supporter of reciprocity and “free-trade tariffs,” is it possible that Trump, who tends to support free markets and private enterprise, could leave his tariff threats behind? Time will tell if we can finally put the rollercoaster into storage.
Michael Taube, a longtime newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
