Trump cancels trade negoitations with Canada after a provincial government releases an ad featuring Ronald Reagan

[wing2000]

Yesterday, Trump announced an additonal 10% tariff on Canada.

All because a provinicial government had the nerve to remind America of it's free trade principles.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Reagan's free trade policies were the fore runner of NAFTA (1994) and Trump's USMCA (2020). I doubt most Canadians despise those agreements.

IMO, it's only fair that Canada call out the US for breaking it's agreements.

They still were "glowing NAFTA fans" even well into the mid-2000's.

(2002)

Poll Released on 10th Anniversary of NAFTA Reveals American, Canadian, and Mexican Popular Opinion of Agreement's Success

A new Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of the Wilson Center for the NAFTA at 10 conference held here Monday and Tuesday, shows that at the 10th anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, half (48%) of Americans say that their country has been a winner as a result...

www.wilsoncenter.org

Canadians appear to be the most polarized as to the effects of NAFTA on their country. More Canadians (38%) believe that NAFTA has hurt Canada, compared to one-third (34%) who say that the agreement has benefited Canada, while 17% believe that it hasn't had any impact one way or the other on the country. In comparison, one-third (34%) of Americans believe the agreement has benefited the U.S., while 23% say that it has hurt their country. One-third (32%) say that it hasn't had any impact on the United States. Mexicans are the most evenly split on the effects of NAFTA on their country, with 29% who say that the agreement has benefited Mexico, 33% who say it has hurt the country, and an equal number (33%) who say it has not had any impact on Mexico.


(2005)

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/2005-05/mr050509-1rr.pdf

Thinking about the economic-trade relationship between their two countries, four in ten in both Canada (38%) and the United States (41%) say they want closer trade and economic integration between the two countries. But most Canadians (60%) and half of Americans (47%) feel their country is a “loser” from free trade.



So, should we just assume then that free trade agreements between the two nations are a metaphorical "veggie pizza" of economic diplomacy?

Where people complain about it because there's no sausage or pepperoni on it when it's there, but then when someone says "fine, we just won't have any pizza then" and takes it away, they say "well hang on a minute!, I'd still like to have some sort of pizza why are you taking it away??"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Remember, the purpose of a political ad (the real purpose) is fundamentally to change people's minds. If Canada is trying to change people's minds about US tariff policy, who are they going to be reaching out to? Obviously, people who support the current policy and the President - in other words, Republicans. If you're trying to reach out to a group that, in general, tends to idolize Reagan, then using Reagan as a "spokesman" makes a whole lot of sense. Who would you suggest they use instead?


I agree - the difference is that I don't see a problem with that. It's unlikely to change my mind about anything, but I can recognize that there are some commonalities between Bernie and Trump when it comes to border policy, and I don't begrudge anyone pointing that out.

I would refer to it as "condescension politics"...

Basically, at best, it's implication that the other side is so easily malleable, that all you have to do is trot out a few quick quotes from one of their "heroes" as a means of getting them to change their position rather than actually engage them.

At worst, it's an attempt to paint them into a no-win corner where they have to disavow one of two people who they liked.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would refer to it as "condescension politics"...

Basically, at best, it's implication that the other side is so easily malleable, that all you have to do is trot out a few quick quotes from one of their "heroes" as a means of getting them to change their position rather than actually engage them.

At worst, it's an attempt to paint them into a no-win corner where they have to disavow one of two people who they liked.

Ok? And what does that have to do with the false equivalencies you keep throwing out?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok? And what does that have to do with the false equivalencies you keep throwing out?

It's not a false equivalency...

Are those not the possibilities of what they were intending with that ad?

Either "you should oppose tariffs, because look at what your pal Reagan said" or "Well, you can be pro-Reagan or pro-Trump, but not both, so which one of these two are you going to disavow?"

(the former is a more generous interpretation in terms of their intentions)

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yesterday, Trump announced an additonal 10% tariff on Canada.

All because a provinicial government had the nerve to remind America of it's free trade principles.

Mess with the bull, you get the horns. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have more control over his country. Or we could do it for him.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's not a false equivalency...

These aren't false equivalencies?

So now Ronald Reagan is super smart and had a handle on economics? He's the "trickle-down" guy right?

Do the fine people of Ontario (where my dad's side of the family is from and some still live) really want "Reaganomics" lol?

See, this is where there are communication breakdowns... I spent a substantial portion of the past two decades hearing people crap all over Reagan for his economic policies that favored the wealthy and the business owners, but now when there's an opportunity to highlight a policy divergence between him and Trump, it's time to start invoking "the wisdom of Reagan"?

"You agree with this person on one thing, so you must agree with everything they said!"

Reagan's anti-tariff position and free trade agreement proposals were something that Pierre Trudeau (and his party) were very skeptical of. Organized labor in Canada favored protectionism at the time.

'80s/'90s Canada is not 2020s Canada.

The understandable response to that would be "Well, Ron...are you going to be doing any of the other FDR stuff or planning to follow his lead on a bunch of other issues?...No?...then why are you even bringing him up?"

 

[wing2000]

They still were "glowing NAFTA fans" even well into the mid-2000's.

(2002)

Poll Released on 10th Anniversary of NAFTA Reveals American, Canadian, and Mexican Popular Opinion of Agreement's Success

A new Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of the Wilson Center for the NAFTA at 10 conference held here Monday and Tuesday, shows that at the 10th anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, half (48%) of Americans say that their country has been a winner as a result...

www.wilsoncenter.org

Canadians appear to be the most polarized as to the effects of NAFTA on their country. More Canadians (38%) believe that NAFTA has hurt Canada, compared to one-third (34%) who say that the agreement has benefited Canada, while 17% believe that it hasn't had any impact one way or the other on the country. In comparison, one-third (34%) of Americans believe the agreement has benefited the U.S., while 23% say that it has hurt their country. One-third (32%) say that it hasn't had any impact on the United States. Mexicans are the most evenly split on the effects of NAFTA on their country, with 29% who say that the agreement has benefited Mexico, 33% who say it has hurt the country, and an equal number (33%) who say it has not had any impact on Mexico.


(2005)

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/2005-05/mr050509-1rr.pdf

Thinking about the economic-trade relationship between their two countries, four in ten in both Canada (38%) and the United States (41%) say they want closer trade and economic integration between the two countries. But most Canadians (60%) and half of Americans (47%) feel their country is a “loser” from free trade.



So, should we just assume then that free trade agreements between the two nations are a metaphorical "veggie pizza" of economic diplomacy?

Where people complain about it because there's no sausage or pepperoni on it when it's there, but then when someone says "fine, we just won't have any pizza then" and takes it away, they say "well hang on a minute!, I'd still like to have some sort of pizza why are you taking it away??"

How many Canadians support Trump's tarrifs?

 

[Desk trauma]

How many Canadians support Trump's tarrifs?

125%

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How many Canadians support Trump's tarrifs?

Nearly seven-in-ten Canadians (68%) say they either strongly (25%) or moderately (43%) support CETA, the yet-to-be-concluded trade deal between Canada and the European Union.


If we look at the CETA proposals of 2014 (that pertained to free trade agreements between them and the EU) while they were warmer to that proposal than they initially were to NAFTA, with only a quarter of them having strong support, and under half having "moderate support", that wouldn't normally seem like a predictor of major backlash to the concept of tariffs.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I'm guessing Canada is to tired to care about dealing with Trump.