Skip to main contentWhat are your thoughts on Carney declaring in his speech that Canada went along with a lying American world order because they thought they were safe, and that they cannot anymore? : r/AskReddit
What are your thoughts on Carney declaring in his speech that Canada went along with a lying American world order because they thought they were safe, and that they cannot anymore?
That's not exactly what he said. The specific quote (with emphasis) is:
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
Partially is doing as much work there as false. The story of the rules-based order was partially false. But that's true for all systems of governance: they're built on stories that don't hold up to scrutiny, but they are useful, and often better than the alternative. It's a useful fiction in the way that talking about "universal human rights" is a useful fiction. Even if it's not strictly true it's better to believe in it (and have others believe in it) than the alternative.
The alternative to the "rules based international order" is the world we're seeing ourselves move towards, which was the subject of Carney's speech. What can we do when no one believes the lie that lets us stay at peace with each other? Carney answers:
[If] great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
I've seen some people want to pick at his comments as though he's giving the game away, as if the rules-based order was never actually something that any of the global elite ever truly believed in. But it's the opposite. The rules-based order was something that many people in governance really, truly, wanted to believe in, and they've been willing to sustain the "lie" until it became untenable (as it has now). And it didn't fall apart for any reason other than that America, who upheld the "lie" more strongly than anyone and subsequently benefitted the most from it, decided that it would rather revert to an old mercantilist form of capitalism that predated the modern "transactional"/international capitalism.
OP's account is about one week old. It's likely disingenuous by design. Let's hope that the other readers catch this and do not wildly misinterpret the words and intentions of Prime Minister Carney.
for any reason other than that America, who upheld the "lie" more strongly than anyone and subsequently benefitted the most from it, decided that
For the record, America didn't decide anything here. No thought or decision making went into it.
It's simply that ever since Richard Nixon was forced out of office, the Republican faction has worked to protect its presidential candidates from responsibility. Eventually they were so successful that a candidate came along who had no awareness of the goals of his country or even his political party.
Even Donald's voters don't approve of his actions in foreign policy or economics, but they won't oppose him now because that woule mean admitting they'd been wrong.
Even Donald's voters don't approve of his actions in foreign policy or economics, but they won't oppose him now because that woule mean admitting they'd been wrong.
This aligns quite well with the other theme of Carney's speech:
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself? [...] Not through violence alone, butthrough the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
I was wrong to say "America" chose to do anything because that's feeding into another narrative of convenience which is that governments speak univocally for their people. But it's equally true that the American people have had chances to vote against this, and whether or not their choice was unanimous, the consequence is the same as if it were because enough Americans have participated in setting and sustaining this course.
I mean, it’s disingenuous to say that America didn’t decide this. Trump was elected democratically twice. They may not have predicted this exact outcome, but Trump is in some ways the most honest and predictable person ever elected, in that he’s infallibly mendacious and reliably unpredictable. Voters chose chaos, and they are reaping that at the moment.
I agree. I already commented above (probably below for anyone else as a new comment) that this post title is essentially rage baiting. It is not even close to being representative of what Carney stated.
Not living up to your ideals is not the same as not having any ideals.
And ideals like international rule of law and democratic values only exist to the extent that people have faith in them.
When those with the most power no longer have any faith in the ideal, those of lesser strength can still hold true, as long as they recognize their situation.
The ideal collapsed because America lost faith in it. It stopped believing it could do what it needed to do while operating within the confines of the system it created.
But those ideals still exist and are ready to be picked up again at any time, stronger and more ready for those who seek to undermine them.
Not living up to your ideals is not the same as not having any ideals.
Precisely. This is why the world has looked away so many times in the last 250 years that the US did shitty or stupid things. We believed in their ideals. And we believed that they believed in their ideals.
I’m sure many, many Americans did and do, but apparently not enough of them to stop the country from electing Trump twice.
This is the second or third great post I’ve seen in this thread. Writing and thinking of this quality is a new experience for me on r/AskReddit. Thank you.
The term "rules-based order" doesn't refer to a written set of rules, but a commitment to work through international issues through diplomacy, soft power, trade, and international institutions.
A good example would be tariffs and trade tensions between the US and Canada.
Even after NAFTA was established, Canada and the US have had their share of trade disputes, such as with Canadian softwood lumber. Both have put tariffs on the other before, but only on the certain products involved in the trade disputes. Canada and the US have taken issues through NAFTA's resolution process, and if that didn't result in a solution, brought them to the World Trade Organization.
No mean tweets, no threats of annexation. One party or the other may have had to compromise and make concessions, but everyone generally kept their word.
Even Ronald Reagan, who isn't the most popular president on Reddit, achieved great diplomatic success by negotiating nuclear arms reduction treaties with Gorbachev and the USSR.
Very happy with my PM in this current situation. That speech was historic and very accurate. I’m glad he said what he did. It gives me hope that some people in charge are seeing what many of us see.
It's a big shot across the bow of Europe too. They're passive and compliant and acting like it's the 30s again.
Really he attacked the media too. He said the entire way we present the way things are is a lie we say out loud. He's saying the media is repeating it.
In Australia our right wing party are called the Liberals and coloured blue and our left wing party beat them and I'm almost certain that's why he is leaving us alone.
Right on the money. Jeffery Sachs’s has said it best, for too long, Western Europe and Canada has acted as vassal states to the U.S. and have allowed the U.S. for 30+ years to do whatever they want internationally all under the guise of “freedom” or “doing the right thing” because the countries that were being targeting by the U.S. did not affect them so they toed the company line.
I’m glad they’re giving pushback and other EU countries are saying Greenland is a redline the U.S. cannot cross.
And remember he’s not the most charismatic guy but fuck is smart. He kept Britain afloat during Brexit and even help Harper during the financial crises. Carney a lot like Chrétien a blue liberal he just doesn’t have swagger that Chrétien had. I don’t see Carney giving Trump the ol Shawinigan Handshake
Ever since this guy got elected I feel like I'm walking around a little taller with my head up and clear eyed about the world and future, ready for whatever crap comes along. I'm so pumped this guy is my prime minister and absolutely proud to be Canadian
That's not exactly what he said. The specific quote (with emphasis) is:
Partially is doing as much work there as false. The story of the rules-based order was partially false. But that's true for all systems of governance: they're built on stories that don't hold up to scrutiny, but they are useful, and often better than the alternative. It's a useful fiction in the way that talking about "universal human rights" is a useful fiction. Even if it's not strictly true it's better to believe in it (and have others believe in it) than the alternative.
The alternative to the "rules based international order" is the world we're seeing ourselves move towards, which was the subject of Carney's speech. What can we do when no one believes the lie that lets us stay at peace with each other? Carney answers:
I've seen some people want to pick at his comments as though he's giving the game away, as if the rules-based order was never actually something that any of the global elite ever truly believed in. But it's the opposite. The rules-based order was something that many people in governance really, truly, wanted to believe in, and they've been willing to sustain the "lie" until it became untenable (as it has now). And it didn't fall apart for any reason other than that America, who upheld the "lie" more strongly than anyone and subsequently benefitted the most from it, decided that it would rather revert to an old mercantilist form of capitalism that predated the modern "transactional"/international capitalism.
Thank you!
Nailed it. OP’s framing is bordering on disingenuous.
OP's account is about one week old. It's likely disingenuous by design. Let's hope that the other readers catch this and do not wildly misinterpret the words and intentions of Prime Minister Carney.
Isn't bordering. It is disingenuous.
For the record, America didn't decide anything here. No thought or decision making went into it.
It's simply that ever since Richard Nixon was forced out of office, the Republican faction has worked to protect its presidential candidates from responsibility. Eventually they were so successful that a candidate came along who had no awareness of the goals of his country or even his political party.
Even Donald's voters don't approve of his actions in foreign policy or economics, but they won't oppose him now because that woule mean admitting they'd been wrong.
This aligns quite well with the other theme of Carney's speech:
I was wrong to say "America" chose to do anything because that's feeding into another narrative of convenience which is that governments speak univocally for their people. But it's equally true that the American people have had chances to vote against this, and whether or not their choice was unanimous, the consequence is the same as if it were because enough Americans have participated in setting and sustaining this course.
I mean, it’s disingenuous to say that America didn’t decide this. Trump was elected democratically twice. They may not have predicted this exact outcome, but Trump is in some ways the most honest and predictable person ever elected, in that he’s infallibly mendacious and reliably unpredictable. Voters chose chaos, and they are reaping that at the moment.
I agree. I already commented above (probably below for anyone else as a new comment) that this post title is essentially rage baiting. It is not even close to being representative of what Carney stated.
Not living up to your ideals is not the same as not having any ideals.
And ideals like international rule of law and democratic values only exist to the extent that people have faith in them.
When those with the most power no longer have any faith in the ideal, those of lesser strength can still hold true, as long as they recognize their situation.
The ideal collapsed because America lost faith in it. It stopped believing it could do what it needed to do while operating within the confines of the system it created.
But those ideals still exist and are ready to be picked up again at any time, stronger and more ready for those who seek to undermine them.
It's so strange that America lost faith in it at the very time their economy was the envy of the world.
Precisely. This is why the world has looked away so many times in the last 250 years that the US did shitty or stupid things. We believed in their ideals. And we believed that they believed in their ideals.
I’m sure many, many Americans did and do, but apparently not enough of them to stop the country from electing Trump twice.
This is the second or third great post I’ve seen in this thread. Writing and thinking of this quality is a new experience for me on r/AskReddit. Thank you.
May I ask what these rules are?
And why not just comply with international law?
The term "rules-based order" doesn't refer to a written set of rules, but a commitment to work through international issues through diplomacy, soft power, trade, and international institutions.
A good example would be tariffs and trade tensions between the US and Canada.
Even after NAFTA was established, Canada and the US have had their share of trade disputes, such as with Canadian softwood lumber. Both have put tariffs on the other before, but only on the certain products involved in the trade disputes. Canada and the US have taken issues through NAFTA's resolution process, and if that didn't result in a solution, brought them to the World Trade Organization.
No mean tweets, no threats of annexation. One party or the other may have had to compromise and make concessions, but everyone generally kept their word.
Even Ronald Reagan, who isn't the most popular president on Reddit, achieved great diplomatic success by negotiating nuclear arms reduction treaties with Gorbachev and the USSR.
Very happy with my PM in this current situation. That speech was historic and very accurate. I’m glad he said what he did. It gives me hope that some people in charge are seeing what many of us see.
It's a big shot across the bow of Europe too. They're passive and compliant and acting like it's the 30s again.
Really he attacked the media too. He said the entire way we present the way things are is a lie we say out loud. He's saying the media is repeating it.
I feel less anxious knowing that we elected a Prime Minister with the clarity to weather this crisis.
Bit of jealousy given how close Australia is with US but it's much less dire than Canada here.
We do need a new Pacific partner though cos we can't go it alone.
Perhaps this will expedite the formation of CANZUK? One can only hope.
You mean Trump isn't punishing you as much?
In Australia our right wing party are called the Liberals and coloured blue and our left wing party beat them and I'm almost certain that's why he is leaving us alone.
Bro NZ and our helicopter have your back 👊
Right on the money. Jeffery Sachs’s has said it best, for too long, Western Europe and Canada has acted as vassal states to the U.S. and have allowed the U.S. for 30+ years to do whatever they want internationally all under the guise of “freedom” or “doing the right thing” because the countries that were being targeting by the U.S. did not affect them so they toed the company line.
I’m glad they’re giving pushback and other EU countries are saying Greenland is a redline the U.S. cannot cross.
Carney is a fantastic reminder of what a strong, intelligent, leader looks like.
Compare Carney’s Davos speech with Trump’s rambling, insane press conference. The difference is astonishing.
And remember he’s not the most charismatic guy but fuck is smart. He kept Britain afloat during Brexit and even help Harper during the financial crises. Carney a lot like Chrétien a blue liberal he just doesn’t have swagger that Chrétien had. I don’t see Carney giving Trump the ol Shawinigan Handshake
Ever since this guy got elected I feel like I'm walking around a little taller with my head up and clear eyed about the world and future, ready for whatever crap comes along. I'm so pumped this guy is my prime minister and absolutely proud to be Canadian
You all are lucky. Many of us felt that way with Obama
Pretty darn brave. But someone has to call it out. The Americas are in trouble. Globalization is in trouble. Something has to change.
A call to stop pretending, a call to leave fear behind
Striking bit of honesty in his speech. Tbh
Basically he is saying that the USA/Trump has betrayed Canada and he's not going to let that happen again.
Totally accurate.
How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. Trump says it’s done and they all cheer in the dark.
Canada went along with the American order because it was convenient.
Since America has decided to burn all bridges it’s a good thing Carney is forging new relationships.