Since Canada is already a left-leaning society, they tend not to question the news, as it typically follows their ideological stance. So, when they are told that Trump wants to build a wall to keep out Mexicans because he is racist… they tend to believe it.
My wife decided to surprise me for Valentine’s Day and took me to Niagara Falls. We stayed at a nice hotel with a window facing the falls and were amazed at the majesty and power that they held. Then, we went to dinner at a rather nice restaurant, again overlooking the falls. While we were waiting on our food to arrive, another couple sat down next to us. They were probably in their late 50 or 60s and were talking about a vacation that they had taken. Within a few minutes, we were engaged in conversation with them. We spoke about the differences between Canada and America, starting with the accents. They told us about being in the Caribbean and meeting a couple from Ohio. Then, the conversation turned to politics. This is where our chat got really interesting.
My wife asked what they thought of our current political circus, and it was clear that they believed us to be fellow liberals. Our dinner partners told us about the recent encounter they had with the couple from Ohio. The Ohio couple appeared to be very nice people– until, of course, our Canadian friends said that they felt sorry for us Americans having to deal with Donald Trump as president. The Ohio couple stated that they voted for our president, and at that point, we were told how awful they were. It amazed me that the vitriol the Canadian couple had was perfectly justified in their minds, but anything the Ohio pair said was basic hate speech. My wife had my leash on very tight that evening (probably due to her fear of my somewhat inconsistent use of a filter) and kept me from responding about our views.
The next day, we went to a local brewery. This time, it was my wife who started up the political conversation with the owner and manager. She started off non-confrontational, asking what they thought of the political circus going on across the border. “I try to be non-political, but I am very interested in what your take is on our political culture, especially the election we just had,” she said.
While I was very pleased to know that they both thought Hillary was a criminal, I was disturbed on their view of President Trump. Like our dinner neighbors, they were likewise liberal—although nowhere near as angry or judgmental about it. But unlike our conversation the night before, they were much more open to a discussion based upon the merits and facts as opposed to mere rhetoric. In other words, my wife allowed me to actually take part in this exchange.
In our conversation, I learned quite a bit about our neighbor to the north, and hopefully they ascertained some knowledge from us. I learned, for example, that Canada was very socialist-leaning and ant-iweapon (very strict gun and knife laws). They had a fairly homogeneous culture and were roughly a tenth of the size of the United States.
The last part explained quite a bit to me, and I believe it is an important temporary segue for us to have. Size and homogeneity are the two required criteria for socialism to work properly. Socialism is essentially the government taking large amounts of money from the people in order to provide services at the government level rather than through the private sector. The first requirement for a system like this to exist is that the people must be essentially unified in their belief that their earnings should be taxed by the government to pay for whatever services are to be provided. This amalgamated view can only exist, however, if the population is small enough for social norms and consequences to be enacted across the population. When a group gets too large, divisions begin to appear and differing norms and values crop up. At this point, you no longer have the social part of socialism, as the people are divided on what they expect from their government.
When the situation reaches this juncture, the only way socialism can survive is through the power of the gun. It is for this exact reason that progressives in the United States always want to quote the examples of such peaceful leftist countries like Sweden (nine million population), Finland (five million population), or Denmark (also five million population). Canada can be socialist because of its population size and the fact that its laws are designed to force others into cultural compliance.
So, while I understood their views on the differences between our two nations, I couldn’t grasp the reasoning behind their perception of President Trump. They asked why Americans would vote for someone who was so clearly anti-Muslim, homophobic, and such an incredible misogynist. They told me that closing the borders to people based simply upon their race or religion seemed to go completely against everything that America stood for. They also couldn’t understand why Trump and half of America hated homosexuals and wanted to see their civil rights stripped. Finally, they wanted me to explain why American women were only paid half of their male counterparts (which, considering how much money my wife makes compared to me, made me laugh a bit in surprise). Over the next hour, I learned how much Trump’s complaining about the media is truly justified.
These two men, who were smart and intuitive, were being completely washed with a doctrine focused on one purpose—discrediting our president. As an ultra-strong-willed and vocal constitutionalist (notice I don’t say Republican), I am used to not accepting the analysis and editorials from the media. I personally like to get the facts and then make my own assessment, as I believe that all sources of media are skewed toward their own values. This was beaten into me throughout my military career, and especially throughout my deployments. You always had to judge all situations based upon the ideologies of those around you and make your decisions accordingly.
Since Canada is already a left-leaning society, they tend not to question the news, as it typically follows their ideological stance. So, when they are told that Trump wants to build a wall—not to protect the sanctity of our borders and ensure we only allow in those who are worthy, but to keep out Mexicans because he is racist—they tend to believe it. The same goes for his signing of an executive order focused on keeping out people from countries compromised by terrorism where it is difficult to properly vet immigrants; all they hear is that he is attempting to enact a ban on Muslims. As far as the misogynistic views go, I couldn’t really say much on that one. The comments that were unearthed during the election that Trump made regarding women were highly offensive. Not much more can be said about that. I personally believe that they were crude jokes that were said to try and impress the interviewer, and one needs to look at the totality of how the president treats the women in his life; however, to each his own on that one.
At the end of the conversation, I was told that after I explained the president’s reasoning, they completely understood his logic. Like us, they only want those deserving to enter their country. Like us, they want security for their families, and they fear terrorism.
In the end, however, I walked away with this—the media does not simply spread contempt for the president, it spreads hate against those who aren’t liberal-minded. The first couple we met didn’t hate the people from Ohio because they had different opinions. They hated them because the media told them anyone who supports Trump represents evil. My trip reaffirmed what I have believed for a long time, and what I have constantly stated in my articles: it is time that we on the right start fighting back. Our voices need to be heard and our views need to be understood. We are on the correct side of history, and we hold the moral high ground. If we don’t start expressing this, it won’t be long until we have no one willing to accept us.
Matthew Wadler is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army veteran. Matt served in the Army for 20 years as both enlisted and officer before retiring. His service includes time as Military Police, Field Artillery, Adjutant General, and Recruiting. His deployments include Somalia and two tours to Afghanistan. His formal education includes a master’s degree in HR Management. He is a strong supporter of the constitution and advocate for the military and veteran communities. Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewWadler.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected].
