It’s only been six days since the Trump Administration announced the successful abduction of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, but what some managed to mistake as regular old U.S. interventionism has quickly shown itself to be little more than petty theft and what I now expect is the beginning of a reign of terror on all nations in the western hemisphere.
I’m not burying the lede.
For more than a year, Donald Trump has been threatening Canada’s sovereignty. He appointed a contemptible prick in Pete Hoekstra to troll us within our own borders. He has tariffed our industries, threatened our jobs, and consistently made good on his promise to put economic pressure on Canadians.
Despite this no-longer-new reality, far too many conservatives in our country are still struggling to adjust to the about-face by someone they believe is an ideological ally. Danielle Smith has made no secret of the fact that she is powerless to tell the difference between conspiracy theory and fact if she believes she’s ideologically aligned with the person who says it. While I don’t believe most conservatives are that ridiculous, it was still shocking to see so many current and former elected officials coming out in support of the Trump regime’s actions.
The leader of Canada’s Official Opposition was first out of the gate to praise Donald Trump for abducting Mr. Maduro but he was only leading the pack. I’ve heard more than a few people try to charitably give Mr. Poilievre some latitude, because for him it was personal; his wife is Venezuelan. We all get that politics can be very personal when a government decides not everyone deserves rights. However, I suspect his response would have been more measured had the Biden Administration carried the abduction out simply because he wouldn’t have risked being seen as someone who would congratulate a democrat.
It’s a problem that the CPC leader has refused to address, despite the fact that he lost an election he shouldn’t have, I’d argue wouldn’t have, if he could have pivoted.
The same day, Michelle Rempel-Garner defended U.S. action in similar fashion on her Substack, claiming that regime change was necessary because of the accusations against Mr. Maduro of criminal activities, documented human rights abuses, as well as his illegitimacy as Venezuela’s leader. The points she makes are fine; if the Trump regime acted for any of the reasons she gives. That was, of course, not the case.
As Vice President J.D. Vance said in an interview on January 7, it was a display of their military prowess and people will think twice about having something the Trump Administration wants to take (paraphrased for clarity).
Jason Kenney, former Alberta Premier as well as a minister in Stephen Harper’s cabinet, also joined in to, ahem, curry favour against “socialism” and “collectivism”. (We need humour more than ever.)
I cannot be emphatic enough when I say that “socialism” has never jailed (or allegedly murdered) journalists, political dissenters, and opponents to forced labour. For the record, “libertarianism” isn’t tearing down Alberta’s health system, “conservatism” isn’t handing over hundreds of millions in public funds so private interests can profit, “liberalism” didn’t get TMX approved, and “progressivism” didn’t implement vaccine mandates. Those were decisions made by people and we need to stop letting them off the hook for decisions we don’t like by blaming political ideology.
It doesn’t matter if they claim to be making decisions to further the ends of their ideology. It doesn’t matter what “beliefs” or “principles” they use to justify their decisions. We will never be given an opportunity to hold political ideology to account; even if we can be suckered into voting for it.
Gold-plated tin
We didn’t have to wait years for an inquiry over the abduction of Mr. Maduro and Ms. Flores. In rare form for a U.S. leader, Mr. Trump was entirely open about his plan to steal Venezuela’s oil for the U.S.. Even though Mr. Trump likely wanted to continue with the line that he runs Venezuela now, he was apparently mollified by saying he would personally control the couple billion he’s stealing from an already poor country by taking their oil.
I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America. This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States! I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately. It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(bolded emphasis mine)
Robin Hood, he most definitely is not, but I could be convinced he’s the Disney version of Prince John easily enough. And Stephen Miller is Hiss… shudder. You can’t unsee that.
Far too many people— conservatives, republicans, and Venezuelans themselves— initially attributed the Trump Administration’s actions to motivations that did not exist; like regime change that would benefit the people of Venezuela. In fairness, the U.S. has a long, if not failure-laden, history of forcing regime change in other countries, but it has a documented history of trying. What they also have a long history of trying to do is create the story that will sell it to the people who will have to pay for it, either monetarily or with their lives.
It’s hard to believe anyone can look at the terror he’s unleashed on citizens in his own country with his modern day gestapo and believe he gives a damn about human rights abuses; and we are not immune from this in Canada, either.
The tinpot dictator of the U.S.A. is paying for human rights abuses in his own country as we speak. They will lie about that, however.
The same day Canadian “anti-socialists” jumped up to be counted as supporters of the Trump regime’s actions, Mr. Trump and members of his Administration were already musing about which country would be next. Cuba? Colombia? Why not, Trump said with a shrug. It’s not his money; or his sons and daughters. Also, they want Greenland.
No kidding.
There’s a difference, some supporters of the “it’s fine because Maduro was a bad guy” theory claimed, because Greenland is a NATO ally.
Excuse me if I’m the first to point out that Mr. Trump doesn’t understand the difference and anyone in his Administration who might doesn’t actually care.
The Trump regime is no longer interested in “making deals” or spending time and money on “diplomacy” because they don’t think they have to. They are squandering their country’s reputation globally because they have managed to convince themselves that they didn’t need anyone else before and they won’t need them in the future.
But, but, we want the same things
This is an issue I find most common in conservative circles (which is also influenced by being in Alberta, I’m sure) because many seem to believe that if they are ideologically aligned, support is expected and given, without serious consideration of the implications; as outlined above. This exists in liberal and progressive circles as well but I find that once the latter are no longer under the thumb of a leader as an elected official or staffer, they are much more likely to disagree publicly than conservatives, who tend to remain solidly in the tank for their party.
As I’m just beginning to get into “No I in team: party loyalty in Canada” by Alex Marland, Jared Wesley, and Mireille Lalancette, it’s a reminder that this unquestioning support is a feature in Canadian politics; not a bug.
A group orthodoxy that dissent must be expressed in camera means that representatives who forcefully advocate for their constituents internally are publicly indistinguishable from compliant partisans. Loyalty to the leader fuels opinions that party interests prevail over constituent interests and that politics is a closed shop reserved for staunch partisans.
No I in Team, page 5
I often get flack for not being all-in on a political ideology despite being all-in on politics generally. I’ll offer some credit to my undergrad in sociology because there are many different lenses from which to view and understand the world and this is part of the study. Being able to switch between them was something I enjoyed, without realizing the broader implications for the skill. The reason I cannot settle on a political ideology is because I see the benefits of most of them as ideals. I don’t subscribe to the idea that conservatism, liberalism, progressivism, communism, libertarianism, or socialism is inherently evil, instead accepting the reality that individual people can be evil and/or do evil things.
Because I weighed in on the aforementioned conservative response to the Trump Admin in Venezuela, I can also answer the following: What about Stalin or Hitler? Totalitarian dictators. Xi? Dictator. Trump? Aspiring dictator. Smith? Similar predilections, constrained only by the fact that Canada is much freer than she is willing to admit.
Their political ideologies are obviously not all linked, but there are underlying similarities that lie in thought policing and creating/forcing a shared identity.
A friend sent me a podcast the other day; an interview with political scientist Samuel Bagg in which they discuss how bias and social identities shape our views and, more importantly, why and how growth in knowledge and understanding requires interaction with opposing arguments. And no, I’m not saying that we need to hold court with those who wish harm on others; much debate can and should be had on far more useful topics.
Samuel Bagg: You can have many identities at once. They could become salient at different times in different contexts. In fact, a lot of political strategy, whether people realize it or not, is trying to make certain identities that people hold more salient or try to interpret them in different ways at different times. It often comes about through what looks like reasonable debate or stating facts and so on. But a lot of it, what it is doing in practice is activating certain identities, shaping the way people interpret them and so on, because that is what affects how they interpret, respond to, process, whatever information they are receiving.
…
David Roberts: Over time, I’ve come to see rationality and reason as not the default, but as an achievement, a rare achievement, and almost always a collective achievement, a social achievement, something people achieve together. No matter how much of an individual brain genius you are, you can’t — it’s like trying to see the back of your head in a mirror. You can’t chase down all your own biases and distortions. The only way we can iron that stuff out or sift that stuff out over time is collectively. That’s how we reason well. In those rare instances we reason well, we do it together over time.
Samuel Bagg: If you want to test this theory, just think of your favorite genius, and I guarantee they will have had some crazy beliefs or at least non-rational beliefs.
Conservatives have to find a way to align with Canada
I have been picking on Jason Kenney for his lack of judgement because I know he loves Canada. He might be upset that Justin Trudeau got to be Prime Minister, or that Canadians rejected Stephen Harper, and Andrew Scheer, or Erin O’Toole (who would have been great if not for the fact that he was outnumbered by the Reformers in his party) and Pierre Poilievre (case in point: said Reformer who took Erin O’Toole out by caucus revolt), but I do not doubt his great respect for what our country has been or that he has optimism still for its future.
It’s why I find myself expecting better from him— if he could just get out of the partisan mindset.
We need voices like his and Erin O’Toole’s. We have Liberal leadership in charge but we need conservative leaders who can focus on what’s best for Canada and it is not partisan division. Canada needs conservative leaders who can push back against Trump without getting caught up the few things he might do that they agree with.
Donald Trump is not a friend to Canada.
The Trump Administration is on a dangerous path and Canada is in the way. The Official Opposition is still focused on attacking our government and they do it in a way that weakens the leadership of Canada. It is not helpful in managing the overarching threat; which is the Trump Administration.
I need to hear more conservative voices rising above the trenches of partisanship and I think Jason Kenney could be the unlikely hero of this story if he can find his way out of that partisan orifice.
Canada is calling, Jason.
Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!
Great article, Deirdre.
My only issue, and it's not insignificant, is that Jason Kenney created an awful lot of the animosity taking place in rural Alberta right now. Yes, it was always there, but he unlocked the door, unleashed the anger, gave it a voice, and it's far too late to cram it all back where it belongs. I don't deny Kenney's love for Canada, but his attacks on Justin Trudeau, the ABNDP, and "over-caffeinated" laptop leftists should never be forgiven. Kenney bears much of the responsibility for the mess we currently find ourselves in.
Good post Deirdre, agree with both of you. Like Charlie Angus said shut up, Danielle”, “grow up Pierre”