The Challenge of Discussing U.S. Politics Without Trump Derangement in Canada
In contemporary Canadian society, discussing American politics has become increasingly fraught with tension and polarization. According to commentator Jerry Agar, attempting to have reasonable conversations about the United States often proves difficult because many Canadians cannot separate their views of the country from their intense feelings about former President Donald Trump.
The Core Problem in Cross-Border Discourse
Agar recently attempted to facilitate such a discussion on his Newstalk1010 radio program, focusing on a survey indicating that nearly 20% of Americans believe the U.S. should take over Canada. While two-thirds of respondents reportedly thought Trump should refrain from threatening sovereign nations like Canada and Greenland, the conversation quickly derailed. "Too many people will not talk about Americans or America without venting hate for Trump," Agar observed. "A reasonable conversation cannot be had."
This phenomenon extends beyond political discussions to everyday topics. Mentioning anything related to the United States—from weather patterns in Texas to grocery prices in Buffalo, New York—often triggers furious anti-Trump responses from Canadian interlocutors. Agar notes the irony that Trump neither controls weather systems nor uniquely influences grocery inflation, which affects both countries.
Nuance Lost in Polarized Conversations
The commentator clarifies that he isn't defending Trump's actions or rhetoric, acknowledging that the former president has "brought it on himself" through controversial policies and statements. However, Agar laments the complete absence of nuance in many discussions. When he recently mentioned anything Trump has done correctly, even among typically polite Canadians, he witnessed explosive hatred that allowed no room for balanced conversation.
"There is no nuance. No desire for nuance. No desire for conversation," Agar writes. "Just loud, angry and, I must point out, Trump-like behaviour." He emphasizes that this polarization transcends traditional political divides, having become "a Canadian thing" rather than merely a liberal-versus-conservative issue.
Exceptions to the Rule and Personal Consequences
Not all conversations follow this pattern. Agar describes a recent Sunday discussion with a group that avoided what he terms "derangement." While these individuals didn't like Trump and worried about damage from his tariffs and anti-Canadian rhetoric, they could understand why his polling numbers remained strong on certain issues like border control and stock market performance. They also recognized why his numbers suffered on affordability concerns—which Agar considers more significant than other metrics.
The polarization has personal consequences too. Agar reveals losing at least one American friend who, "so dedicated to the cult of Trump," cut off communication rather than listen to explanations about Canadian anger toward the former president. Meanwhile, he'd like to discuss why some Americans appreciate certain policies, such as border control measures that Prime Minister Mark Carney has acknowledged Canada may have "overdone" through lax immigration and refugee programs.
Looking Beyond the Current Political Climate
Agar suggests that the intensity of these reactions might diminish with time, noting that "Trump will be gone in three years" regardless of constitutional debates about his potential to remain in power. He expresses hope for more measured discussions once the current political climate evolves, though he acknowledges the challenge of navigating conversations until then.
The broader implication concerns how political polarization affects international relationships and civil discourse. When discussions about neighboring nations become dominated by single figures rather than substantive policy analysis, both countries lose opportunities for mutual understanding and cooperation.
