Shocking though it may be to some Americans, we have our own sovereign country. It is our country; we treasure it and we want to keep it.
Tariffs, insults, hostile rhetoric, bullying, predictions of economic take-over – there is no need to repeat President Trump’s recent threats to Canada. As Trump and his aggressive nationalism still enjoy support from millions of Americans, Canadians are responding with a nationalism of our own. In the context, it is needed and welcome. But what sort of nationalism is appropriate for Canada?
We find expressions of devotion and commitment to our country. They are expressed with flags and elbows, words and print, demonstrations, policy and song. In addition to polls, shifts towards buying Canadian and altered travel plans indicate that we have no desire to join the U.S. and become the 51st state. (Given our size and population, we would surely constitute more than one state but that’s beside the point.) There is an appropriate gratitude to our country, the sort of gratitude expressed by the character Socrates in Plato’s dialogue Crito when he argues for his obligation to comply with the laws under which he has been sentenced to death. We begin to feel gratitude for what we have been given through our laws and institutions, and an implied appreciation of what we owe to our country, given what we have received.
Shocking though it may be to some Americans, we have our own sovereign country. It is our country; we treasure it; we want to keep it. At least 90% of Canadians do not want to join the United States. We value Canada’s beauty, resources, institutions and practices: our readiness to compromise; federal parliamentary system; universal health care; initiatives of recognition and reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis citizens; social welfare provisions; stronger gun control; sustained inclusion of francophone Quebec; multiculturalism; traditions of peacekeeping; and progress towards women’s equality. It must be acknowledged that our efforts have not always been wholehearted and successful; they should be continued, strengthened, and energetically pursued. To work for these values, we need our sovereignty: we cannot give in to attempts to dominate our country. Repeated and terrifying, recent threats make us realize what we have and have been comfortable to take for granted. The reactions: frustration, anger, anxiety, and fear and for many a sickening sense of betrayal.
On February 5 Maclean’s magazine published “A Lament for Canadian Nationalism” by Robert Schertzer. Echoing the title of George Grant’s Lament for a Nation (1965), Schertzer called for the renewal and reinvigoration of Canadian nationalism. He described some potential benefits: fuelling a sense of common purpose, removing interprovincial trade barriers, smoothing transition to a green economy, increasing investment in the military, and easing the move to markets of natural resources. Some of these posited benefits would be contested; others may be hard to achieve. But the point remains: benefits can be sought as we seek to preserve and strengthen our country in the context of threats and hurtful betrayal. This is a time when we need our nationalism.
Theorists often distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is the love of one’s country, while nationalism, based on shared culture and traditions, extends further to include assertive pursuit of the nation’s interests. Nationalism may include negative aspects such as denigrating foreigners; proclaiming superiority; aggressively attempting expansion; dismissing or ignoring the interests of other nations; and refusing cooperation in global institutions. Recent months offer alarming indications of what extreme nationalism can look like: we have seen what not to do. Historical reflections will amplify that awareness.
So, perhaps we Canadians should be proclaiming patriotism, not nationalism? It can be argued that patriotism would be the thing; perhaps nationalism is too aggressive and assertive for Canada. I won’t try to stipulate language here: ‘nationalism’ is the term used in our recent discussions. The crucial thing, I think, is to think about what form of nationalism is suitable for Canada. What would fit our history and context? What, for us, would be responsible nationalism?
Often nationalism includes attitudes of hostility to others, especially others seen as threats. Canadian nationalism has not been generally negative in this way. Yet historically, at the core of much Canadian nationalism has been anti-Americanism: a sense (often smug) that whoever and whatever we are — and we may not quite know –we are not them. We are different from them: more polite, more moderate, less loud, less conspicuous, less aggressive. It may seem like a good time to be anti-American. Recent insults and rhetoric about the 51st state could be sufficiently disturbing to elicit anger, even hatred. There is much to fear from a threatening stronger party; we need to watch out for ourselves; be strong against the bully. From fearful wariness, distrust and enmity may develop. Yet our nationalism need not and should not be based on hostility toward Americans as individuals. These are our friends of proximity and long standing, including family members, friends and colleagues.
With nationalist attitudes we treasure our country and want to keep it: we abhor threats to its sovereignty and survival. We wish to build and preserve our country. But that desire need not involve animosity toward others. Many millions of Americans support Trump and his policies. Noted. Some may support Elon Musk’s smashing of American federal civil services. But less noted is the encouraging fact that many millions of Americans do not support Trump and his policies. Opposition to recent chaotic and destructive measures does exist. In their March 19 essay “Resistance is alive and well in the United States” Erica Chenoweth and co-authors Jeremy Pressman, and Soha Hammon report that in February 2025 there were some 2085 street protests in the United States. Targets included Trump’s agenda generally, Elon Musk’s company Tesla, and administration actions against federal workers, migrants, immigrants, Ukraine, and LGBTQ persons. Campaigns of boycott, noncooperation, and withholding purchase are being pursued as worried Americans develop techniques of nonviolent resistance used by anti-authoritarian movements around the world. Millions (340 .1 million to be more precise) of American individuals should not be construed as a unified threatening mass. There is evidence that more than half of American citizens are not supporters of the current U.S. government and its policies. And dissent is growing.
Nationalism can be strong without attitudes of hostility. And it can be strong without attitudes of arrogance and superiority. Are we number one? Is Canada the best place to live? The best country in the world? A world leader? There is no need to think so. We can value and appreciate our country without claiming that it is superior to all others. To be Canadian nationalists, we don’t have to shout that we are number one or say we will be the leader. It is enough that this is our home and our country; we acknowledge its faults and omissions but treasure it for what it is and what it has given us. And we are resolved to keep it.
There is no need for Canada first, and there is no need for Canadians only. As Canadian nationalists, we will understand that there are nationalists of other countries, persons who love and are loyal to their own place and have their own deep feelings and concerns for the flourishing and survival of their nation. To set the point in immediate context, a Canadian nationalist can appreciate and be sensitive to Mexican and Ukrainian and Danish nationalism — not to forget the not-so-little matter of Greenland. Attitudes of animosity, arrogance, and exclusivity are not necessary for nationalism and certainly not for a nationalism appropriate for Canada.
Partiality: now that raises questions. While not denigrating or ignoring the interests of others, nationalists will favour their own nation and its citizens, pursuing their interests more than others. That is an obvious form of partiality and as such it raises ethical issues at several levels. We try to be ethical and have obligations accordingly, but of course we are partial to our own. Parents are apt to be most concerned about the education of their own children, not the integrity of an education system in general. Constituency members will likely be most concerned with local interests; provincial governments their own province. National governments will be most concerned with the flourishing of their own country, less so with the wellbeing of others or the planet as a whole. Ethicists divide on arising conflicts and on the justification of partiality, and their reflections apply in the context of nationalism. How far should partiality go? Only so far, not too far. But how far is too far? How far is far enough?
What if doing the best for global climate means denying regional energy interests in your country? What if global climate initiatives threaten its unity as a result? It may appear that what is best for the globe is not best for the Canadian province of Alberta and, through risks of furthering alienation in that province, not best for Canada either. National interests may appear to be incompatible with requirements of global progress regarding global warming. Preston Manning seems to think so; in a Globe and Mail column he argued that a vote for Carney Liberals would be a vote for Western separatism. Many disagreed — including many non-Liberals.
Obligations and challenges are obvious when we reflect on such matters as the World Health Organization, humanitarian and rescue efforts, cooperative scientific research, and collective defense against invasion. As recent events indicate, countries can opt out of collective arrangements, announcing proudly that they seek to reserve their funds and energies for themselves. But it is selfish and unwise to do that. Trump’s isolationist and extreme nationalist moves are unwarranted and take partiality too far. Far too far, absurdly too far – and furthermore they are short-sighted and likely self-defeating. Damage to the planet will affect us all, Americans not exempted. Exceptionalism? In this context, you are not exceptional and will not be exempted. Fires and floods resulting from climate change have affected and will affect Americans, as will infectious diseases. Memo to President Trump: such effects are more than hypothetical.
We need our Canadian nationalism. It should be a nationalism appropriate for our country and our times, a Canadian nationalism that is not hostile, arrogant, or exclusive but rather, open and responsible. Let us acknowledge the needs and interests of others and the challenges and obligations of continuing our lives and health in this, our treasured country, on this, our single beautiful planet. No to the 51st state. And yes to a sovereign Canada. 