TThe United States is in crisis and therefore Canada is in crisis. These interconnected crises have common features. Both involve rethinking national strategy as well as issues of federalism. But that's where the similarities end.
What threatens the United States?crisis of democracyThis is widely accepted. It began at the beginning of the 21st century and accelerated after the global financial crisis of 2007–2008.
Americans are deeply polarized about what has gone wrong with the system and how to fix it. There is a red state representation and a blue state representation. The fight in Washington has become fierce as each camp seeks to implement its own vision of a new national strategy and prevent the implementation of an alternative vision.
My own diagnosis of the current moment differs somewhat from both the red and blue views. American system generally is not in crisis. Eat tens of thousands of governments (state, regional, local) in the US, and the vast majority are working as usual. In many ways this is a crisis central institutions that have proven incapable of dealing with polarization and are likely to exacerbate it.
I have argued that this crisis is an unintended consequence of decades of centralized reform. The architecture of American federalism has changed significantly since the 1930s. The power of the national government—Washington—expanded. At the same time, power within Washington has changed, and presidents have become much more powerful than before.
This bipartisan project of centralization was based on the assumption that regional and ideological differences within the United States were disappearing. If most people were on the same page, Washington would have an easier time making decisions on a wider range of topics. At the same time, people who lost in national elections will be dissatisfied, but not upset by the result.
The homogenization assumption no longer holds, if it ever existed. Regional and ideological differences are widening. In fact, they are fueled by centralization. Since most power is concentrated at the center, national elections are of great importance. Growing polarization has led to gridlock in Congress, more attempts by presidents to act unilaterally, and increased arbitrariness and unpredictability in federal policymaking.
The turmoil in American foreign policy over the past decade—on issues of trade, defense, alliances, and support for international institutions—is symptomatic of a federal system whose current design does not fit the realities of American society.
WITHthe Anadians fought with the consequences of a systemic crisis in the US for several years, but the severity of the problem was not fully realized until 2025. The reality has now sunk in.
There is a general understanding in Canada that its own grand strategy must be recalibrated to reflect new realities. Prime Minister Mark Carney has put it differently: it “gap” And “hinge moment“The end of Canadian history”our old relationship with the United States“, and dawn “new century“
Canadians are less clear about How national strategy must change in this new era. There is general agreement that Canada should reduce its dependence on the United States, build more infrastructure and spend more on defense. This is a list of tactics, not a statement of strategy. Details are unclear and topics such as climate change are completely absent. There is no real vision for Canada here..
Reaching agreement on a national strategy has always been difficult in Canada because it is a federation like the United States. However, this is a special type of federation. The Canadian provinces play a larger role in this federation than the American states do in theirs. Regional differences are more pronounced and the party system is more fragmented.
In fact, the decentralized nature of the Canadian federation has increased over the past thirty years. Power shifted from Ottawa to provincial capitals in an attempt to resolve the crisis surrounding Quebec secession and constitutional reform in the 1980s and 1990s. Power has also slowly shifted to the indigenous peoples, who are now recognized – in word if not in practice – as partners in the federation.
For obvious reasons, strategy development is difficult in a decentralized system. But other government actions have further complicated the situation. For example, the federal government once had a practice of creating “blue ribbon” commissions when it faced “defining moments.” One example is MacDonald Commission 80s. Ottawa refused such exercises, considering them cumbersome and unpredictable.
Between the 1960s and 1990s, Canada also had independent advisory bodies, such as the Economic Council of Canada, that facilitated long-term strategy discussions. Most of them were liquidated in the 90s for reasons of austerity.
Between the 1940s and 1990s, Canada's first ministers—the prime minister and provincial premiers—also met almost annually at First Ministers' Conferences (FMCs), which served as a forum for elite dialogue and a focal point for national dialogue. The practice of regular FMCs was also abandoned after the 90s.. In Canada there is something called the Federation Council, which meets regularly. This includes prime ministers, but not prime ministers or indigenous leaders.
There are other factors that make public dialogue about the national strategy difficult in Canada. Civics education is generally weak, and the federal government does not play a significant role in this area. Canada's mainstream media has been impacted by technological change, and Canadians are heavily influenced by social media from south of the border.
Add to this another reality: Canadian politics has become more competitive and fixated on short-term struggles to win and maintain power. As a result, political leaders are reluctant to invest in long-term institutional and policy changes that would promote national dialogue. The priority is to act rather than think about what action to take..
We can see this dynamic in action today. Carney heads a minority government that has weak power. There is little interest in promoting a national dialogue that could unfold within two or three years. The emphasis is on “making deals” And “show results” fast.
Although Carney speaks of a “new era,” his program is largely short-term and reactive. Trade, defence, border security: Canadians are talking about these issues because US President Donald Trump put them on the table nine months ago. And the methods of the Carney government are equally familiar. Results will be achieved through elite negotiations between the usual suspects: heads of government and technocrats. Indigenous leaders in particular complain that they have been pushed out of the country..
Iit's not necessary be like that. The Carney government could easily take a two-pronged approach. The first area consists of items that require immediate action (for example, resolving trade problems with the United States and helping the hardest-hit industries) or items that are generally needed (for example, liberalizing domestic trade). The second direction is long-term. It includes steps to promote national dialogue, including the creation of something like the Macdonald Commission, albeit radically revised for the digital age.
This two-pronged approach would be better for Canadian democracy. This would allow Canadians to understand the challenges facing the country over the next thirty years and make informed choices about what kind of country they would like to build.
A two-pronged approach would also be better for the Carney government. For much of 2025, Canada was united by a surge of patriotism. But there is already evidence that the patriotic surge is fading and Canada is returning to its restless state.. A national conversation about shared ambitions would generate public support…social license“, as they say in Ottawa – for difficult choice what Carney sees ahead.
Fundamentally, the United States and Canada face common challenges. Every country must find a way to make its federal system work in dangerous times. America's predicament, however, is fixing a system that is all about Washington and national politics. The solution likely involves decentralizing responsibility to lower levels of government while reconfiguring central institutions to more effectively manage departments.
On the contrary, Canada's predicament fosters a sense of common purpose in a system prone to centrifugal pressure. The solution lies in rebuilding the institutions and practices we once relied on to bring all the pieces together and promote national dialogue about the future path.
Adapted from “USA and Canada: two crises of federalism“, published on Substack. Reprinted with permission of the author.
