In a thought-provoking commentary, Peter Shurman challenges Canadians to reconsider their intense personal reactions to former U.S. President Donald Trump, arguing that such emotions should not become the defining characteristic of national identity. The piece examines how aggressive nationalism, rather than hatred, characterized Trump's approach to Canada, and warns against substituting moral superiority for genuine competitiveness.
The Question of Trump's Attitude Toward Canada
Shurman begins with a direct inquiry: Does Donald Trump actually hate Canada? The author points out that despite widespread Canadian perceptions, there is no concrete evidence supporting this notion. During Trump's presidency, diplomatic relations remained intact, trade agreements were not completely terminated, and military threats were absent. Instead, Trump consistently prioritized American interests through tough trade negotiations, tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and pressure on NATO allies—including Canada—to increase defense spending.
Understanding Aggressive Nationalism
"That is not hatred. It is aggressive nationalism," Shurman asserts, distinguishing between personal animosity and policy-driven actions. The former president's approach, while often perceived as abrasive or offensive by Canadians, was fundamentally rooted in a strategy of putting America first, rather than any specific malice toward Canada.
The Canadian Reaction: From Disagreement to Disdain
Throughout Trump's presidency, Canadian approval ratings for the leader hovered between 15 and 25 percent, with the majority view extending beyond mere political disagreement to outright disdain. Shurman notes how public discourse became saturated with personal insults like "buffoon," "fascist," and "crazy," with dinner conversations and social media feeds often reducing Trump to caricature.
Why the Visceral Response?
Shurman identifies two primary factors driving this intense reaction. First, Trump's loud, combative, and theatrical style—marked by interruptions, exaggerations, and insults—clashed sharply with Canadian values of moderation and civility. For a nation accustomed to diplomatic understatement, Trump's reality-television persona felt foreign and destabilizing.
Second, fear played a significant role. Many Canadians observed the turbulence of Trump's presidency, including constant controversies, social media storms, and the events of January 6, leading to conclusions about reckless leadership. While these political judgments are understandable, Shurman cautions against crossing into problematic territory.
The Danger of Armchair Diagnoses
When critics label Trump as "crazy," Shurman argues they typically mean one of three things: they dislike his behavior, oppose his policies, or believe his leadership creates instability. These are legitimate political assessments about competence and character in a democratic context.
However, the term "crazy" implies mental incapacity, for which there is no medical evidence. Shurman emphasizes that while one might consider Trump impulsive, divisive, or disruptive, these are political criticisms. Armchair diagnoses substitute insult for substantive argument, ultimately undermining meaningful discourse.
The Cost of Substituting Insult for Analysis
This substitution comes at a significant cost, Shurman warns. If Canadians wish to critique Trump's presidency effectively, there is ample substantive ground to explore. His tariff strategy disrupted Canadian industries, his "America First" doctrine signaled a shift in handling traditional alliances, and his pressure on NATO exposed Canada's chronic underinvestment in defense. These were serious policy shifts with real economic consequences.
Yet, Shurman reiterates, these actions were not expressions of hatred toward Canada. They were expressions of American self-interest. The author concludes by urging Canadians to focus on building national competitiveness rather than defining themselves by who they dislike, emphasizing that a confident country does not rely on moral superiority as a substitute for genuine strength and strategic engagement.
