Article content continued

To be clear, opposition insinuations to the contrary, nothing the prime minister said in any way justifies Trump’s broadsides, or his apparent decision to target Canada as the cause of all of America’s ills. (Why did the U.S. impose tariffs on all imported steel and aluminum? Not as a matter of national security, as claimed — and as required under U.S. law — but, according to Trump’s latest tweets, in response to Canadian milk tariffs.)

Photo by Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

But calculations of blameworthiness are beside the point. We have before us a much more immediate task, avoiding harm, in the service of which we are obliged to be ruthlessly pragmatic. The question to be asked of any official word or act, so far as it touches upon Canada-U.S. relations, is not whether it will look good or feel good, but will this help or hurt in the accomplishment of our mission.

This is a counsel neither of caution or belligerence, but rather of cold calculations of self-interest: we should be prepared to adopt either strategy, or any other, based strictly on what is most likely to work. So far, it should be said, nothing has. The threatened retaliatory tariffs on American goods (to take effect July 1) have proved as ineffective at altering Trump’s course as the prime minister’s earlier attempts at “Trump-whispering.”

Again, that doesn’t necessarily mean the PM is at fault: maybe no other approach would have worked any better. But if the prime minister should not automatically be blamed for failing to avert Trump’s wrath, neither should he be above all criticism. There is a disturbing sentiment afoot, which the government seems eager to encourage, to the effect that anything other than unwavering support for the prime minister is somehow disloyal.

This is silly. The stakes are large, but not existential; this is a fight about tariffs, not World War Two (and even in that conflict, dissent was not prohibited).

We are unlikely to frame an effective counter-strategy if it is not open to debate and criticism. It is one thing to say we should be united in rejecting the president’s personal attacks on the prime minister, as we are in defense of Canada’s national interest. But how to defend that interest is a matter on which reasonable — and patriotic — people can differ.