Canada Day, celebrated on July 1, holds a special charm, particularly as it falls just days before America’s Independence Day.
While these two national holidays are rooted in opposing ideologies—Canada Day marking the confederation of Canada in 1867 under British law, and July Fourth commemorating a revolution against that same crown—the modern context often presents them as a harmonious celebration, a week-long joint birthday of sorts.
However, recent comments from President Donald Trump have cast a shadow over the festive spirit this year.
Just as Canadians began preparing for the holiday weekend, President Trump announced a renewed aggressiveness in the ongoing trade war with Canada.
He took to Truth Social to declare the termination of all trade discussions with Canada, stating that tariffs for Canadian businesses would be communicated within a week.
In a subsequent Fox News interview, Trump exacerbated tensions with comments suggesting that Canada ought to be annexed by the United States.
He stated, “Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state. It really should… Because Canada relies entirely on the United States. We don’t rely on Canada.”
To understand these remarks and their implications, one can turn to the thoughts of George Grant, a Canadian conservative philosopher whose ideas resonate in this contemporary context.
In 1965, Grant published a pivotal work titled *Lament for a Nation*, which argued that Canada’s increasing integration with the United States amounted to a form of national suicide.
His argument hinged on the premise that economic ties with a larger neighbor would undermine Canada’s sovereignty, stifling its political independence.
Yet, Grant’s insights extended beyond politics; he posited that this integration would erode Canada’s cultural identity, blending it into the relentless tide of American progressivism.
He warned that Canada could transform Canada Day into a lesser echo of America’s Independence Day.
Trump’s recent rhetoric illuminates Grant’s concerns, suggesting the philosopher’s warnings have taken on new urgency.
Intellectuals Patrick Deneen and Michael Ignatieff, the latter being Grant’s nephew, have revisited Grant’s arguments, highlighting their relevance in today’s politically charged atmosphere.
What is intriguing is that while Grant feared the allure of American liberalism would diminish Canadian identity, it is now the actions of an illiberal American administration that pose the greatest threat to Canadian autonomy.
Resistance to American hegemony appears to be rallying around Liberal Party Prime Minister Mark Carney—who embraces a multicultural identity distinct from the American model.
*Lament for a Nation* underscores Grant’s narrative with the story of John Diefenbaker’s defeat in 1963, which Grant saw as sealing Canada’s fate.
Nicknamed a “prairie populist,” Diefenbaker represented a Canadian conservative identity that stood apart from the urban elite.
Grant framed Diefenbaker as a bulwark against the liberal elite’s push towards increased ties with the U.S., viewing his resistance as a moment of national significance.
Diefenbaker’s reluctance to fully embrace U.S. military cooperation, specifically the stationing of American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, demonstrated a commitment to preserving Canadian sovereignty that Grant cherished.
When Diefenbaker was ousted, Grant contended that there was no longer a political barrier preventing full integration with American interests.
He lamented that Canadian self-determination was sacrificed for material benefits, leading to a trajectory of decline.
Skeptics may argue that Grant was overly pessimistic since Canada has persisted beyond his predicted demise.
However, such dismissal overlooks the nuance in Grant’s claims.
He didn’t assert that Canada would immediately be annexed; rather, he warned that the nation would lose its agency and cultural distinctiveness through enmeshment with American ideals.
Grant viewed the United States as the embodiment of Enlightenment liberalism, prioritizing individual freedom and capitalist progress above national identity and community values.
In stark contrast, Canada was tied to British conservatism, which emphasized tradition, propriety, and cautious political evolution.
Grant feared that as Canada integrated further with the U.S., it would surrender its unique cultural identity, erasing the distinct differences that set it apart from its southern neighbor.
He posited that Canadians were susceptible to American influence, moving too readily towards a universal and homogenized liberal state, losing sight of what defined their nationhood.
The triumph of liberal ideals in Canadian discourse, according to Grant, heralded a loss of authentic Canadian conservatism—culminating in Diefenbaker’s political demise as the final act of defense.
In the current atmosphere, Grant’s warnings resonate with new significance.
To modern observers, President Trump’s rhetoric represents an overtly imperialist stance towards Canada, making Grant’s foresight painfully relevant.
Michael Ignatieff, echoing Grant’s sentiments, noted that America once represented a benign hegemony that acknowledged Canada’s sovereignty.
In stark contrast, the current administration exhibits contempt for Canadian interests, framing the relationship in terms of dominance rather than partnership.
Historically, the Conservative Party was presumed to champion Canadian nationalism, but the political landscape has shifted.
During the recent elections, the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, emerged as the leading voice against Trumpist policies.
Carney’s firm stance against Trump not only resonated with Canadians wary of American overreach but also illustrated a collective desire to reject far-right politics.
Meanwhile, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s style seemed too similar to Trump’s, alienating potential supporters who sought a different version of conservatism.
As a result, Canadians rallied around Carney’s vision rooted in tolerance and multiculturalism, rejecting the historical undercurrents of too-close ties with the U.S.
Canada’s redefined national identity has effectively rallied its citizens against fragmentation and the erosion of civil discourse often witnessed south of the border.
In a remarkably ironic turn, the evolution of Canadian identity suggests a kind of resilience that Grant may not have anticipated.
Canada has successfully positioned itself as a beacon of tolerance amidst a global climate of hostility—attracting immigrants and fostering a multicultural society without succumbing to an anti-immigrant backlash evident in parts of the United States.
Rather than merely absorbing American cultural narratives, Canadians are forging a distinct path that asserts their values, pushing back against external pressures.
This year, as July Fourth approaches, Canadians may find their national discourse more united than ever, not merely celebrating their identity but also standing firmly against any suggestion of subservience to external forces.
Indeed, this Canada Day may recount a story of resilience, self-determination, and a nuanced understanding of national identity that outweighs the discord from its powerful neighbor.
image source from：vox
