Why does Trump keep attacking Canada? | Power & Politics

Since U .S.President Donald Trump returned to office last year, Canada can't seem to escape his wrath.From a trade war, to threats of becoming the 51st state, to delaying the opening of a cross -border bridge, Trump repeatedly sets his sights on his northern neighbour.

We don't need anything that Canada has, we don't need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have.Canada's been very, very tough on us over the years.I mean, in all fairness to them, they need us to survive.Without us, There's no way they can survive.

We've got to stop these fires from coming in and poisoning our air.

Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs.

So the USMCA, are you looking to update that?I don't care.I mean, I don't really want to.I'd rather be independent.Here's the thing.Mexico and Canada need us.

We don't need them.The deal is important for them.It's not important for us.

For more insight on Trump's Canada problem and the impact it could have down south, I'm joined by Robert Rowland, a professor of rhetoric and political communication at the University of Kansas.Thank you for doing this, sir.I appreciate it.Why do you think Donald Trump has targeted Canada in the way that he has?

It's important to understand Trump only has three basic messages.He blames some other as causing problems for the United States, whether that's a foreign trade partner, undocumented immigrants.He says elites don't care about ordinary people, and he says he's the solution.The difficulty he has is that his stories sound true, but often are not true.And therefore, he has a great deal of trouble producing the results he promises.Such as bringing prices down immediately or recreating manufacturing jobs.

His response is to scapegoat, to double down on blaming some other party, and then to try to change the plot.He's even said that he's attacking Canada using Canada as a scapegoat and also to try to change the narrative from the.bad things that are happening in the American economy, gas prices, the failures of the war with Iran and so forth.

I mean, it's interesting, though, because I think it started with Trump, but it has expanded pretty broadly now, right?You hear Republican politicians, elected or otherwise, repeating a lot of the stuff the president says, frankly, just kind of badmouthing Canada.What impact do you see that having on views toward Canada within the Republican Party?

Well, first, it's really the party of Trump, no longer the historical Republican Party.The party, the small government party of someone like Ronald Reagan, there are a few leftovers, but people who are actually in Congress or in power, there are very few of them.And what Republican leaders have learned is that it ends their political career if they cross President Trump.And that has led to a great deal of many Republicans making statements that simply echo President Trump.I don't think there's been a change in attitude about Canada among the great majority of the American people.This is Republicans in leadership knowing that they cannot cross the president and maintain their political career, mouthing what he says simply because of self -preservation.

You know, you've got Howard Lutnick out there saying Canada sucks, or that Canada sucks off the United States economy, or whatever it is.Peter Navarro saying those Canadians, they're the worst.And I sort of understand it as a tool of rhetoric, of just sort of, you know, attacking somebody else.But is there any kind of long -term plan?gain that might emerge from it?Because I can only see the negative side, what cost it's going to have in terms of repairing the relationship down the road.

That's correct.And if you think about it, their attacks on Canada now are an attack on the trade deal negotiated in Trump's first term, because he's the one who negotiated the deal that's in effect.Attacking your own trade deal, I don't think in the long term that's a very good strategy.In the long term in politics, having the facts on your side is a very powerful thing.And previous presidents of the United States of both parties, Obama and Reagan come to mind, understood that.And I think the economic fundamentals are very likely to determine the eventual trade, new trade deal that is negotiated.

He speaks in one way about Canada, and we obviously amplify it and talk about it.It's the subject of every dinner party I've been to for a year and a half.I wonder what your read is of how he talks about Mexico, because in a lot of ways, the things he says about Mexico are actually quite worse than they are about Canada.

Well, I think you've had prime ministers who are extremely articulate, who have gotten under his skin a little bit, and Prime Minister Carney's call for the middle powers to pull together.I think he has heard that.President Trump tends to respond with bluster rather than arguments.And I think we've seen that, for example, with the statements about Greenland that relates to NATO and Denmark, but it's the same kind of thing.I think in President Trump's mind, pure politicsis a more powerful force with Mexico than it is with Canada.

I mean, you're a professor of rhetoric.You study this stuff.You know this stuff.Is there a historical comparison to a president treating Canada like this?I've gone through the history books.I can find nothing that quite approaches this.

Well, President Trump, it's different than any previous American president.Much more typical of American presidents of both parties would be the two I mentioned.I'm thinking of President Reagan in particular, who famously had such a powerful relationship with Prime Minister Mulroney.Mulroney spoke, he gave one of the eulogies at Reagan's funeral.That is more than normal relationship of Canada and the United States.We share so much in culture, in history, in values, you know, there are going to be disagreements about public policy, but this kind of rhetoric is without precedent in American history.

His polling numbers, Trump's polling numbers, are particularly weak.They're especially weak in and around the subject of tariffs and around the trade relationship with Canada.I keep asking myself if that even matters.What is your view?assessment of whether it matters?

Economic fundamentals do matter.I noticed he's now hit a new low, as of today, 21 points underwater in net unfavorability.And the problem with tariffs is two big problems.They don't produce the manufacturing revitalization that he promised.In his second term, he's a little bit negative in manufacturing job growth.And they do raise prices.

And they also irritate our closest allies.So maybe that's three negative effects.And of those negative effects, the one that is most likely to be felt by voters and have impact in the midterms would be the effect on prices.

All right.We're going to have to leave it there.But I really do appreciate your insight.Robert Rowland, a professor of rhetoric and political communication at the University of Kansas.Thank you so much.