Thomas P.M. Barnett’s Global Throughlines is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Our inbound president Trump has created a lot of waves with recent comments about Canada being the “51st state,” buying Greenland (something that Harry Truman attempted in the late 1940s and might work today if we offered, say, $1m per resident — deal or no deal!), and snatching back the Panama Canal (oh so Monroe-Doctrine-y but an indication that the Trump Administration will be paying more attention to China’s presence in our hemisphere than previous administrations).
Naturally, I find all this sudden hubbub to be much in line with the thrust of America’s New Map, in which I argue for:
A rejiggering of our world perspective from the past’s East-West integration schemes and momentum to the present-and-future’s North-South integration imperatives and opportunities
A recasting of Trump’s America First mindset to one of an Americas First approach to hemispheric affairs (amidst globalization’s present East-West “decoupling” and “re-regionalization” dynamics)
The notion of “superpower brand wars” among the world’s five integrating forces (US, EU, India, Russia, China) across an emerging Global South that is being simultaneously blessed with expanding middle-class consumption and cursed by climate change’s rapid onset
The logic of opening America back up to new members — a concept I first introduced in Esquire 18 years ago!
So, no, say I, Trump is not being bizarre with such talk. The global dynamics are moving us all in this direction of North-South integration, and yes, as I stated in America’s New Map:
Canada plus America would be the perfect twenty-first-century superpower.
A notion pushed by Canadian journalist Diane Francis, author of Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country. Her simple but powerful observation:
If the United States and Canada were corporations, or European states, they would have merged a long time ago. Each has what the other needs: The United States has capital, manpower, technology, and the world’s strongest military; Canada has enormous reserves of undeveloped resources and ownership of a vast and strategically important Arctic region.
Nuts! you say!
And then The Economist comes out with this last week:
Europe needs space and resources, Canada needs people. Let’s deal
Tell me that’s not essentially a superpower brand war in the making!
Trump is doing his usual trick of putting it out there as a jibe that automatically raises the hackles of many but ultimately normalizes the concept through repetition — like any good propaganda (as yes, there will be much propaganda in this superpower brand war — something the Chinese and Russians pursue with great vigor the world over).
The “insult” here is not the idea or the logic, but the offered terms: yes, in terms of GDP, Canada is basically the great state of New York in economic size ($2+T GDP annual), but it’s likewise the equivalent of California in terms of population (roughly 40m souls).
Ask yourself: do either of those two US states presently feel like they are adequately represented in Congress (specifically the Senate) or the Electoral College? No, they most certainly do not.
So why would collapsing all of Canada into a single US state appeal to Canadians?
If I’m Canada, I’d want a whole lot more, and I wouldn’t be afraid to ask for it.
For example, with that population of 40 million, Canada would deserve the biggest collective share of congressional districts in an expanded North American Union. In the U.S., House seats are allocated by population (one seat for every 761,169 citizens). Given Canada’s population, it should logically be apportioned about 55 House seats, making it larger than California in terms of representation.
That would be a start alright, but what about the Senate?
Canada has 10 provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia [my fave], Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), along with three huge and increasingly valuable northern territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon).
How many of these pass the Wyoming test (our least populated state at 576,000) for legitimacy as potential US states?
By this measure, eight Canadian provinces would qualify, with only Price Edward Island and Newfoundland + Labrador failing the cut:
Ontario at what would be the 5th biggest US state by population (edging out presently 5th-place Pennsylvania)
Quebec at 14th (edging out Ohio)
British Columbia at 27th (Louisiana)
Alberta at 31st (Oklahoma)
Manitoba at 47th (Montana)
Saskatchewan at 49th (Rhode Island)
Nova Scotia at 53rd (North Dakota)
New Brunswick at 55th (ringing in just above Alaska and Vermont, with Wyoming then dead-last as the 58th state).
I mean, how can you ask Ontario to come in as anything less than its own US state, given its 14m population? Same with Quebec, BC, and Alberta as middle-tier populations or better?
When you get down to the rest, maybe there’s an argument, but frankly, do you want to make this deal happen or not? Because, if you really do, then all eight of these provinces come in as states with two Senators. You can combine Newfoundland and Labrador with Prince Edward or attach either of both to another East Cost province.
Me? I’d add Prince Ed to Nova Scotia and let Labrador and PE come in as America’s newest smallest-by-population state. Why? It is comprises 370,000 square kilometers, which would make it our 5th largest-by-territory state after Montana and above New Mexico. Plus, all that land is way up north, so more valuable over time, just like next-door-neighbor Greenland.
Thus, my offer to Canada is 9 US states, or States 51-through-59. [Yes, I have become more ambitious since my 2007 Esquire piece.] That’s an offer that gives Canadians sufficient power and standing within an expanded American Union so as to not feel like they’d be lost in the wash — something we definitely don’t want as we desperately need an infusion of Canadian sensibility and politeness in our political system.
Again, you wanna make this deal or not?
This logic is why the cover of my book contains so many-more-than-50 stars on our version of the US flag.
No, none of this will happen tomorrow, but the conversation will inexorably rise further in our collective consciousness as we North Americans collectively face very similar problems and opportunities in coming years and decades.
Again, Canada plus the US is the perfect superpower for this century — if you’re tracking big tectonic shifts like demographic aging and climate change. Nothing else comes close.
This is why I have stated, in speech after speech for years now, that if I were the king of North America, this deal would happen — whatever the cost. It just makes far too much sense.
And yeah, if we don’t, then somebody else will eventually offer Canada a better or more compelling deal-of-belonging, with the EU and China in the lead.
Canada is unlikely to handle this looming global future well all by itself. It will need to integrate with larger partners, lest it be lost among the giants foot-stomping their way to the North Pole.
Once you reach that logical place, the question is, Do I, Canada, want to go European or Asian or stay — God forbid — so awfully American?
In other words, Do I belong to either of those Old Worlds or do I constitute something distinctly different and thus American (as in, North American)?
Could Trump take that message to Canada and turn it into something plausible?
Can you imagine anybody other than a Trump-like figure being capable of that Nixon-goes-to-China move?
Think about it.
And then ask yourself why Justin Trudeau is on his way out, certain to be replaced as Canada’s Prime Minister by someone closer to Trump than farther away from that type … because our northern neighbor is feeling all the same populist anger and angst and fear of our collective global future that we have in abundance within our voting population today — which … again … is what gets us Trump back in the White House and Justin Trudeau looking for a new job up north.
I know, I know. This is all so inconceivable!
My comeback: inconceivable today but inevitable this century — the essential geo-strategic equation of my book/vision.
It’s all just a matter of time. So no, maybe I don’t get to see it but my kids are definitely going to live it.
Trump may seem as unlikely a messenger from this future as Nixon was during the height of the Cold War (A global economy dominated by China and America? Are you insane?), but the logic is sound and will only grow more formidable over the years.
Count on it … all the way to (at least) 59 states!
