While Canadian cabinet ministers have largely shrugged off Trump’s unsettling mockery, Canada’s response to the tariff threat has been twofold.
First, it has sought to demonstrate the practical, economic benefits of bilateral trade. Trudeau’s hastily organized visit to Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 29 was intended to communicate this to Trump and his advisers, although it doesn’t seem to have been successful given Trump’s snide mention of the dinner in the Truth Social post trolling Trudeau and Canada.
Second, some Canadian politicians have sought to appeal to the shadier side of Trump’s trade politics, aligning Canada with the United States against Mexico by accusing Mexico of being a back door for Chinese imports and posing a national security threat.
What’s at play as a chaotic Trump prepares to take office for a second time?
We suggest the answer lies not only in economic explanations but especially in psychoanalytic ones. Political strategy is often grounded not in rational economic goals, but in irrational desires that sometimes drive politics and politicians to destructive ends.
The psychology behind ideology
In our recent book examining psychoanalysis and politics, we argue that too often media and policymakers downplay the significance of unconscious desire in everyday politics and economics.
We believe ideology — whether it’s “free trade,” “free choice” or “Make America Great Again” — is not comprised of tired rallying cries by political leaders, but something seductive that both politicians and voters unconsciously desire, regardless of the eventual, and usually negative, repercussions.
“Trade” is therefore more than the sum of economic parts; it is also highly emotional and even fetishized, imbued with near-magical expectations that defy economic common sense and prudence.
Trump’s election campaign successfully drew on this emotional allure, tapping into popular economic frustrations over the rise of China and the relative decline of the U.S. He offered up trade and tariffs as tools to “Make America Great Again.”
Canada, meanwhile, has been caught in the crosshairs, seeking to appease the U.S. while becoming the target of Trump’s populism regardless.
Canada: Teammate or target?
Before the American election, Canada sought to align itself with the U.S. in its trade war with China, announcing tariffs of 100 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles and 25 per cent on Chinese steel and aluminum.
There is an economic logic to such mercantilist thinking. Trump’s strategy, after all, is to use protective tools to reassert American dominance over sectors where it’s fallen behind. Canada and Mexico are being told to get on board or be left out, and Canadian tariffs against China may be its attempt to do so.
Canada has also responded by parroting American accusations against Mexico. Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggested Canada consider a bilateral trade agreement that would squeeze Mexico out of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, while expressing tentative support for the trilateral trade deal, chastised Mexico for “not acting the way that Canada and the U.S. are when it comes to its economic relationship with China.” This is despite the fact that Canada has been as devoted to trade with China as Mexico is.
But when Trump announced at the end of November that he intended to impose tariffs on both Canada and Mexico, and also demanded the end of illegal migration and drugs across the border, Canadian elected officials were stunned. Ford expressed open dismay, saying: “To compare us to Mexico is the most insulting thing I have ever heard from our friends and closest allies.”
Within days, Canada pledged more spending on border security in an apparent effort to mollify the U.S.
Stoking American anxieties
What’s at stake in Trump’s populist ideology is not just economics, but the global status of the U.S.
With China on the rise, this status is seen as under threat, sparking American anxieties. The election outcome suggested a nostalgic desire to regain America’s past “greatness” while eliminating any obstacles standing in its way.
But although Trump has proven adept at exploiting this desire, the irrationality of his populist politics will likely prove counter-productive. Rather than addressing structural American economic and trade problems — for example, unprecedented income inequality and pervasive precarious employment — the emphasis is on flexing muscle and subordinating others.
This is a classic psychoanalytic maneuver: instead of attending to your own failures, you displace them onto a stereotypical other — China, migrants, Muslims, etc.
This is evident in Trump’s attempts to frame Mexicans as “bad hombres,” spearheading an “Invasion of our Country!” in the form of drugs and illegal immigrants, all the while allegedly making “a fortune from the US.”
This despite the fact that, while experiencing economic gains in recent years, Mexico has trailed well behind both the U.S. and Canada in productivity and income growth over the past 30 years.
Trump’s emphasis on potential Chinese investment in the Mexican auto industry — there is currently only one Chinese-owned auto plant in Mexico — diverts attention from the persistent failure of the U.S.-based auto industry to keep up with Chinese technology.
But Trump’s plans to prey on American fears via trade protectionism are likely to backfire. They may temporarily buoy nationalist sentiment and provide relief to some U.S. manufacturers, but soon American consumers will suffer higher prices while producers could be hit by more expensive oil and gas from Canada.
China could also target U.S. agriculture in response to renewed Trump tariffs, negatively affecting the same rural areas that have provided political support for Trump.
The irrationality of populist desire
The irrationality of Trump’s populist protectionist policies is plain for all to see. No wonder Chinese officials point out that “no one will win a trade [or] tariff war.”
As for Canada, it is unlikely that appeasing Trump or betraying Mexico will do much to placate the president-elect. To the contrary, these efforts could well be taken as evidence that more bullying is in order and further concessions can yet be extracted.
Trump’s latest taunts to Trudeau, in fact, prove that escalated bullying will be a common presidential tactic in the months and years ahead — as if we needed more.
Gavin Fridell, Professor of Political Science and Global Development Studies, Saint Mary’s University and Ilan Kapoor, Professor, Psychoanalytic Theory/Politics, York University, Canada
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.