After spending several days in the scenic Adirondacks in New York state with less than a week to go before the American election, I’m struck by the political contrasts between Canada and the U.S.
During my visit, I saw Trump and J.D. Vance signs far outnumber those for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, raising a critical question: If Trump’s opponents can label him a “fascist,” what would they call Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau?
Many who defend Trudeau’s questionable conduct while decrying Trump seem to be part of a troubling double standard, especially among legacy media in Canada and the U.S. In their rush to label Trump a threat to democracy, critics ignore Trudeau’s troubling slide toward authoritarianism and his centralization of control over public and private life. Trudeau’s policies, and the media’s silence on them, reveal a deeper issue of disconnect and elitism among those who excuse his overreach while vilifying Trump.
Consider the following contrasts:
Control over Media and Speech: Trudeau’s government, with the full support of Jagmeet Singh and the NDP, pushed through Bills C-11 and C-18, expanding government control over digital media. Critics argue these bills enable the government to regulate social media, stifling free expression and dictating content in ways that would draw outrage in the U.S. Trudeau’s ‘Liberal’ government can now prioritize Canadian content and monitor digital spaces, a level of surveillance that challenges individual freedoms and even free speech itself.
Suppression of Dissent: Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy, the first such use in Canadian history. This allowed his government to freeze the assets of protestors and their supporters without judicial review. Civil rights groups widely condemned the act as authoritarian and suppressive of political dissent—a dangerous precedent in a democratic country, especially when so many defended Trudeau’s move.
Government Intrusion into Private Finances: The Emergencies Act enabled the Trudeau administration to freeze bank accounts of people linked to protests. This unprecedented power over private finances, without judicial oversight, is almost unheard of in democratic countries. The chilling impact of government intrusion into personal funds underscores Trudeau’s willingness (with the help of the hapless Jagmeet Singh) to silence opposition through financial control, resembling the tactics of authoritarian regimes.
Intolerance for Opposition: Trudeau’s rhetoric paints opposition, particularly conservative views or opinions that do not align with his ‘progressive’ agenda, as “extremist” and “intolerant,” shutting down open debate. This labelling and marginalizing of dissent as dangerous not only curtails open discourse but also reflects a tactic often seen in authoritarian systems where opposing voices are silenced to consolidate power.
Public Health as a Political Weapon: The Trudeau government’s prolonged COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates far exceeded those in other democracies. Labelling the unvaccinated as “misogynists” and “racists” was a divisive stance, alienating many Canadians for personal medical decisions. Such extreme polarization of public health issues set an uncomfortable tone for a leader in a free society, showing how Trudeau has used public health to push his social agenda at the cost of unity and at the expense of the right of each citizen to decide what will, and what will not go into their body, regardless of what any government says.
In the United States, the political divide is heightened by similar rhetoric from leaders like President Biden and Hillary Clinton, who have publicly demeaned Trump supporters. Biden’s comment calling Trump supporters “garbage” and Clinton’s infamous reference to them as a “basket of deplorables” are damning statements that validate what Trump has long argued: that the political elite looks down on everyday Americans who support him.
Biden said, “This is not your father’s Republican Party. This is a different deal. These MAGA folks are the most extreme political organization . . . these folks are really just the dregs of society,” reinforcing the notion that Trump supporters are outcasts, unworthy of respect from those in power. Clinton’s statement that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorable . . . racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it” doubled down on this narrative, painting Trump’s base as morally and socially unacceptable.
For Trump’s supporters, these statements confirm what he has been saying all along: that the political establishment views them with contempt and condescension. This fuels Trump’s narrative of fighting for the “forgotten Americans” and resonates strongly with voters who feel alienated and misunderstood by a political class that Trump says looks down on them.
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris embodies a similar elitist narrative. For three years, Harris and the Democratic Party shielded Biden’s cognitive struggles from public scrutiny, facilitating an environment of denial. This partisan blindness becomes glaring as the same voices who defend Trudeau’s overreach condemn Trump’s every move.
Yet Trump’s administration, for all its criticism, did not censor the media or wield national security powers to silence opposition. His time in office, while divisive, left the checks and balances of American democracy intact, even as he faced opposition from military leaders and legacy media. Trump may have challenged norms, but his policies didn’t erode democratic structures. On the contrary, he revealed how little the American elite understands the grievances of the very people they claim to serve.
Donald Trump bears the vast majority of responsibility for the January 6 Capitol riot, given his persistent claims of election fraud that fueled doubt among supporters regarding the election’s legitimacy. His calls to “stop the steal” and invitation to gather in Washington, D.C., on January 6 led to the storming of the Capitol. However, Trump’s defenders still try to justify the events of that day by suggesting that he did not explicitly call for violence and, in fact, urged a “peaceful” protest. Free speech protections make it challenging to draw a direct line from Trump’s rhetoric to the actions of individuals, especially considering additional factors like lapses in Capitol security and the autonomy of those who chose to enter the Capitol unlawfully. Either way, there is no denying that Trump created a tinderbox and lit the fuse.
It is folly and naive to dismiss the fact that the Democrats played a role in the tense atmosphere leading up to January 6. Throughout 2020, many Democratic leaders openly criticized Trump, framing him as a threat to democracy and suggesting he might not cede power peacefully, which some believe heightened fears among his supporters that democratic institutions were biased against them. Together, these factors contributed to a highly polarized environment marked by mutual distrust and anxiety, factors which set a volatile stage for the events of January 6—a day of darkness for democracy and the United States.
However, four years later, it is the height of elitist hypocrisy to suggest that Trump is a danger to democracy when Kamala Harris hid from the American public for at least 2.5 years that President Biden was apparently in adult diapers eating Jello in the White House while other unelected ‘handlers’ ran the show due to his medical/mental health issues. Then, through what may be the most stealth coup d’état in modern history, President Biden was discarded in favour of the unbearably light Kamala Harris, who became the Democratic nominee for president without having to go through any nomination process. “Et tu, Brutus?”. . . democracy eh . . . but I digress.
The fact is that Donald Trump is the official 2024 Republican nominee after winning the support of most delegates in an open and democratic Republican nomination race. Kamala Harris cannot make the same claim as the Democratic party nominee.
Many Americans support Trump not out of fervent loyalty but from lived experiences with injustice and the double standards they see in the system. This was on display when thousands of Black Americans rallied for Trump during his trial, seeing him as a figure standing against a system they feel has historically failed them. Meanwhile, the same media fixates on Elon Musk’s ventures while ignoring Harris’s significant financial support from tech magnates, revealing yet another double standard in campaign finance narratives.
As we approach the U.S. election, Canadians would do well to reflect on Trudeau’s governing style, recognizing that true threats to democracy often come from the disconnect that allows us to excuse questionable actions in our own leaders. Partisan allegiance cannot be a shield against democratic accountability.
True democracy demands that we scrutinize our own systems and leaders with the same rigour we apply to others.
