Article content continued

It is in this context that we should view the frequent references to Canadian “sovereignty.” Although the actual words have evolved over the years, sensitivity about foreign dominance has a long history in Canada, as it does in pretty much every other country on the planet. Vestiges of the colonial relationship with Britain lasted well into the 20th century, and the fear of annexation by the United States is older than Confederation.

These concerns seem quaint now. Britain has long ceased to wield power in Canada, and the only Americans who think that annexing Canada would be a good idea are the Democrats who fantasize about adding nine or more blue states to the Union. Even patriotism seems old-fashioned today. So why do people still make appeals to sovereignty, and why do they still get traction?

In his book “The Myth of the Rational Voter,” the George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan identifies something he calls “anti-foreign bias”: “a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of interactions with foreigners.” Anti-foreign bias should not to be confused with xenophobia, which is an irrational dislike of foreigners. People who suffer from anti-foreign bias will not necessarily object to foreign immigration, or to interacting with foreigners: they just underestimate the economic benefits from doing so.

People with ‘anti-foreign bias’ don’t always object to immigration or global affairs: they just underestimate the economic benefits of both

If patriotism was the old broadly-shared, irrational sentiment, anti-foreign bias is the new broadly-shared irrational sentiment. And if the old threat was subjugation by a foreign power, the new threat is globalization. More precisely, if you suffer from anti-foreign bias, you’d believe that globalization is a threat.