The most important business idea is there, but if you want to have a look at ...
The Jonas Kaer-I-Ebron side-builder sets the idea quickly and simply catches a game on app, website, or digital tool.
“The Kaer-I-Boutes and with only one click of life.”
Domain and sichre's hosting on europaixen-survans in Klusive. Now, let's start with the "Slashtad" of the Jonas. This is the Daily Blast from the New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I'm your host Greg Sargent. Donald Trump's rage at Canada appears to be getting worse. After Canada's retaliatory tariffs against the US went into effect a few days ago, Trump spiraled on social media, ridiculeing Canada's leader and exploding in a long, unhinged rant that signals no end in sight for this battle.
In fact, Republicans are now publicly admitting that this is a serious problem for them in the midterms in all kinds of ways, and they appear baffled as to the source of Trump's theory. And some striking new polling shows why Republicans are so panicked. We're talking about all of it with Zach Beach of Mavox, who recently reported deeply on the roots of Trump's trade warring.
Zach, good to have you on again. Hey, Greg. I'm always happy to hear your show.
So to recap, after a trade talks between the US and Canada collapsed last month, US tariffs went into effect on Canadian goods. And a few days ago, Canada's retaliatory tariffs went into effect, Trump has since amplified the claim that Canada is ripping off the US.
“So Zach, can you just set the record straight on that? Is Canada ripping us off through trade or not?”
No. No. Look, it's to understand the situation, at least as it existed prior to Trump. You know, understand that there are like normal trade disputes that almost all countries have with each other at least to a certain extent, right? There's a view that, well, this policy that you're doing disadvantages are farmers and adventures yours, or maybe your labor practices and regulations are a little bit different from ours, and that hurts us in this particular
exchange, costs us some jobs. That is basically the most normal of possible disagreements that the country could have countries, any countries could have trade relations. Ripping a country off looks a lot like what China is doing. Canada is in the first slot, right? There's the US
runs a very small trade deficit with Canada. It's like 36 billion or something around there.
And you know, there's disputes about everything from dairy to lumber to steel. There's some like, but they're really, they really fall in the minor disagreement category, right? What the US and Canada have is an extremely beneficial trading relationship, right? And the US benefits in trade with China too, to be clear it's just that China has done things that make that trade formal, that benefit the benefits far or one side of them they should be. But when it comes to Canada,
there's no argument by any serious or credible economists that having an open trade relationship with Canada has been net harmful to the United States, quite to the contrary. That's a good place to get into what Trump exploded over on truth. Social, he erupted on Canada in a long, unhinged rant. He said this quote, "the only reason Canada makes autos is because of previous disastrous trade agreements while other presidents were in office Canada has been ripping us off
“for years." So I think he's referring to the fact that we've had free trade agreements with Canada”
in autos going back many decades. And to your point, the real story here is that the auto industry in America and Canada is kind of like one thing. It's so integrated that it's actually become kind of a transnational entity in a sense and that's actually been good. It's allowed a lot of specialization. But the key here is to Trump and you can see this in his crazy tweet to trump the mere fact that we're trading with Canada is itself and inherently disaster, some bad thing.
Your thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, it's very confusing when you hear Trump talk about trade. Because he seems to misunderstand some like very, very basic elements of what global trade is. Like he thinks that when you're importing for a country, you're giving them money. You're just like giving them money. Right? And then that money doesn't come back to you in any way. It doesn't benefit the people in your country from getting those goods. They aren't helping anything.
It's a little bit like saying, right?
$200 of my money to Whole Foods. Well, I mean, the thing is Whole Foods are trader Joe's or giant or whatever. They are giving you stuff, too. You're getting things out of this interaction. Whereas Trump sees it as a form of extraction. He seems to think the trade deficits mean you're losing, which is also not how it works. Yeah. I mean, it's like, you know, when I go to the grocery store, I want to give them my money so that I don't have to farm. Right. Right. Right. In order to grow my own
food, well, that's that's sort of the other stuff. That I can do other stuff. Right. It's act like, if I have, if I get my food from a Whole Foods, that frees me up to do stuff with my time.
Like, that's basically how this works in a nutshell. I mean, trade is just a domestic economy on a
global scale. Right. On a really basic level, right? Domestic economies, people exchanging goods and services to allow for mutually, you know, economic growth through increasing productivity.
“Right. That's what a domestic economy is. Trade allows you”
do that on a global scale. So, Republican strategists are now openly warning that Trump's trade war with Canada is a big problem in the midterms, especially in states with big Senate races. GOP strategist Brian Darling tells the hill that this is a bad idea right before the election saying, quote, you have a situation where America imports quite a few different goods from Canada.
Close. Well, a second GOP strategist says the Canadian trade war is, quote, unpopular and a lot of
states that touch the border. And here's the best part. This operative says, for whatever reason, this is the fight the president has chosen to champion. Like, this guy defends Trump, but note the phrase for whatever reason. No one knows why he's doing this, right? Zach, you dug into this. What do you make up that Republican angst? Yeah. I mean, it's totally justified.
“Right. Like, go talk to anyone who is right of center right now. And they will tell you that they”
don't, this is not what they would have chosen to do. This is not the way they would have chosen to go about it. And it doesn't make any sense. Right. I mean, they wouldn't go that far. But because
there's still operative in the confines of the Republican Party. But it just is not the policy
fight that like any constituency in the Republican Party or even in the Maga movement was really gearing up relevant to those conversations that I live in Canada now. The Canadians do not perceive it as a joke. Nobody here takes this not seriously. Right. And you're the handful of do or probably disabuse of that notion of this point. Right. It is overwhelmingly a dominant concern. And tariffs are things and the expensive good, the cost of good, the relations with the
US are like a subject of ordinary conversation among Canadians. Whereas Americans, it's sort of like
“a peripherally weird thing that Trump is doing unless you live in a border state or directly affected”
your industry is affected. It just seems kind of odd. But no. So there's what what's happened is that Trump has managed to infuriate one of America's, if South America's closest allies, certainly one out of its closest allies. But I'd make the case for closest, at least in the 20th century, on 21st centuries. And you know, Americans, it's neighbor, one of its closest allies, and has done so for no discernible political or strategic rationale. It's just not a rational
thing to be doing. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I really have to tell you about our sub-stack. The DSR Network sub-stack is the absolute best way to follow deep state radio. The DSR daily words matter need to know, silicaciousness, AI energy and climate and the daily blast. Sign up to get notified every time a new episode drops and stay up to date on the latest news and expert analysis. You can also support us by becoming a paid member, paid members, get an
ad-free listing experience, select episodes two days early, access to live streamed episodes, and 50% off of David's need to know sub-stack. Please consider joining us at DSR Network.substack.com. That's DSR Network.substack.com. Thank you and back to the show. Well, CNN has new polls that really bear this out. There are of the Michigan and Maine Senate races and the numbers are stark on the trade board. In Michigan, 64% say the tariffs on Canada are
bad for the state, and among working class voters that 60% in Maine, 70% overall say the Canada tariffs are bad for the state, including 63% of working class voters. You've got Senator Susan Collins and Maine and Senator Roger Marshall and Kansas and a number of other Republicans also coming out against them. When I look at numbers like that, you know Maine and Michigan are not that blue, and you have a huge majority of working class voters opposing the tariffs in
What are functionally swing states.
sort of a sense maybe among certain Democrats that the word tariffs and the word trader are
bit scary for them because maybe Trump's position vaguely codes is pro-worker, but working class
“voters see what the tariffs are. I think that's a major civic success story in a way. What do you”
think, Zach? I mean, I think it's because these things have tangible effects on people's lives. Right, like I remember, you know, earlier this summer, I drove from where I live in southwest Toronto, Ontario, to New York, to meet some friends, upstate New York, and I went to a brewery that was local there and not that far from the Canadian border, and I told them that, you know, the American, I'm living in Canada now. I think they got sad because what they told me was that they
they used to have a lot of Canadians would come in. Again, the borders are very close here.
And they said, we miss our Canadian friends, right? And of course, that's on one level, that's a business saying we've lost customers as a result of this. On another level, it's saying that we have a level of affection and connection to these people because we live so close to each other, that there's a real sense that this is sort of an integrated region that you
“you just pop over the border if you want to go somewhere for a long weekend, quickly, or just”
visit something. You know, a lot of these cities, like Detroit and Windsor, are literally across the river for each other, look at each other. And what I was in just again, two weekends ago, I was in Michigan, right, for another trip. And there, my wife was wearing a shirt that said Lake Ontario on it. And I think four separate people came up to her to say how happy they were with her shirt and how it really is called Lake Ontario, not Lake America. Right, it's just in
these border states, there is a commitment to being part of this broader ecosystem, it's part of people's identity, it's part of their daily lives, it's part of how they make their money, it's part of how they see themselves. And Trump is disrupting that, right? And whether that resonates in the rest of the United States, my sense is, it's not as much of an immediate concern, just from talking to people in other places, but there's still a generalized sense that, well,
well, how do you care about Canada? Why are you doing this stuff to aggravate a country that
“we all think is a friend and is done basically nothing to offend us? And so I think the broader”
American reaction is confusion, the immediate reaction in more affected areas, or places where this feels more real is, why are you doing this to us? Why are you doing this to our friends? Right, I think that's exactly right. And I want to get into what that really means after this, Trump posted this graphic of himself and Canadian leader Mark Carney, both in hockey get up with Carney sprawled on the ice and Trump looming over him as if he had just knocked him down, saying,
get up governor. I guess that means Canada is the 51st state in Trump's head or whatever. I want to try to get at what this might mean in a deeper sense, though. Like, Trump also posted this graphic of all of North America, Canada, very prominent in this graphic, all of it being defined as the USA as if it's a threat to essentially annex all of Canada. I believe that map also included Panama and Iceland, by the way. Like, it was really like maximal imperialism. And I think they
when they drew the map they didn't intend to do that. They're just that dumb. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right. But it definitely, it was a shot at Canada. It was really Canada, Durangement Syndrome, kind of in the raw. But so I thought Paul Krugman had an interesting line about some of the stuff where he said that Canada is probably going to get hurt worse than the United States, although the US will also get hurt in these in these trade hostilities. But Canada will
put up with it. They know why they're fighting. Right? As Krugman put it, they're fighting to defend their national identity. And when you look at graphics like the ones Trump posts, he's trying to say that he is fighting a nationalist war on behalf of America. But everyone knows it's not true. Like, there's no discernible vision of what's in the national interest behind any of it. Everyone knows that it's all just personal, manic monacy essentially. And I find that really
interesting. Like, at the end of the day, magnet nationalism just melts away when you scrutinize it
for a second. And all that's left is dear leaders, whims, and unhinged proclivities. Don't you think
in this case, I think there's not an argument here, right? Like what's happening with this Canadian word is two things, right? Like Trump is a person who has a longstanding obsession with notions
Of dominance and hierarchy.
a place where he can impose his will, which is the US as much larger, much richer, and Canada,
much more dependent on American trade than the US as dependent on Canadian trade. And so he thinks he can bully them around, especially when you combine that with his long time fascination with tariffs, again, and then to a non-rational way. And his belief and his view, and this is sort of the sense I get from him, that he wants, he's starting to think about his legacy and he wants it to be a physically larger United States, right? He's a real estate developer. And he thinks if you can get
put you the name of Trump on things and create like the Trump expansion, the Trump purchase, whatever, and right, that it'll really cement his legacy in history books. Because again,
he has a real estate developer at heart. And that's what's motivating this on his part,
more than anything else. You can find some ideological antecedents for the idea of Canada becoming part of the US. Interestingly, Papu Cannon wrote about that at one point, sort of the paleo conservative politician, was really a predecessor of Trump in a lot of ways. But became, and be Cannonism wasn't about Cannon. That didn't make it a major policy priority in as much as accepted as opposed NAFTA, wasn't really about hostility to Canada, but Canada,
right, it was just amusing about this stuff. Now, all of this hyperfocus, this elevation of conflict with Canada to a number one White House priority is pure Trump in the way that you're saying,
“right? It's, I mean, I think the best way to think of it is like mad king out.”
You know, in the leak, leak America, lead Ontario thing is, is a really good example. A hallmark of maga politics, right, is that we are winning when they are losing. Okay, we is Trump, maga, America. Like, I don't think there's any discernible sense of what the nation actually is in the Wii. It's not the United States. It's Trump and Trump and maga. And that's a bit of a fungible, movable thing, but it's not the United States of America. And the day is right now,
the target of the maga, two minute hate of the moment, which is Canada, right? And I think maybe people that you're talking about in places like Michigan who understand themselves as participating in a kind of broader thing across the border, who see themselves as integrated with Canada, look at this kind of talk. And it just, it sounds like white noise to them. I think Trump's trade war with Canada will undermine this whole maga idea that we win when they lose. Right? I
think it may be reminding a lot of voters why trade and economic and interdependence can be good things for them in their country. Like the zero sum maga worldview is kind of falling apart everywhere. Immigrants getting removed. It's not resulting in employment for native born young men. Trade war with Canada is only hurting American workers. So I'm hopeful that there's kind of an opening here for the failures of Trumpism, the world historical failures, like this ridiculous trade war,
to open the way to get lots of Americans to understand interdependence and positive sum relationships on immigration and trade as positive things. Do you think there's maybe an opening for
“that? I think it's possible, but people don't naturally think in categories like that. That's”
not why people vote. It's not how ordinary people process political information. To make that kind, to tell the kind of story you need a storyteller. You need somebody who stitches together that is to say almost certainly a Democrat or maybe a very prominent writer who can tell that story. And, or writer or I guess in this day, an age filmmaker, podcaster, or a couple podcasters who are telling that story right now is that. Right, you're okay, all right. But that's uh,
needs to be articulated. Right. The case needs to be made. I think at that level of abstraction, it'll appeal to some people to be sure, but it won't become the way that people understand that. I think there is, as you say, an opening for somebody to use this experience as a deeper examination of what's gone wrong with Buddhism. Already you can see in the polling,
throughout the second Trump administration, record high numbers of Americans, not maybe not
record of all time, but compared to recent years, who believe fruit trade is good for the country.
“And I think that that will continue. I agree just to underscore why I'm a little bit optimistic”
and to return to your point that we need a storyteller to knit all this together, I think that when you've got people in a state like Michigan saying as you put a Mr. Trump, why are you doing this to our friends? In their heads, they are intuitively
Understanding the situation the way we are describing it.
zero-sum politics, intuitively rejecting the idea that we win when they lose, intuitively, kind of,
I guess, I don't know how to put this exactly, but intuitively standing up for interdependence and against friend enemy politics in a sense. They're intuitively in that place
“that Democrats can speak to. I think effectively and say, you know, MAGA, right wing nationalism”
is a catastrophe, it's not the way the world works, we can do better. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's, I think that's probably true. It has a matter of description of the world, and I certainly think that it is a thing that people could come to believe. The question is just will that? And I think that that's not a natural fact, right? It's not just going to come up out of the ether, well, require intellectual entrepreneurship to pursuing people. This is the
list. That's the only point that's right in there. No, absolutely. And I just, I think Democrats should take it upon themselves to be intellectual entrepreneurs and make this case. There's an opening
to make a very big case in favor of liberalism and against MAGA, basically. Yeah, yeah, I hate that's
right. This is part of it. It's clear, I think, that the American public does not want what Trump is doing with trade policy. What they take from that, right, just taking with the specific issue of trade rather than this broader ideological narrative around MAGA, you know, that is a, that's a very open question, right? And I think one thing that would be a huge mistake on the part of the Democratic Party in the future is to conclude from this as you were suggesting
“earlier, right, that like being opposed to trade in sort of a general sense is what you need to do”
to win over the American working, or working person, right, that they just are all as hostile to trade as Trump is, and that he's really tapping into the sign with George Americans. Now, that's not, that's not what the evidence says. It's not good politics. It may be there's a different way. You don't have to go full NAFTA or full, you know, globalization, peak era of the 90s, maybe politically. That's not the right thing to really go about after Trump who's to say,
but the lesson is certainly not that the right thing to do all along was to follow Trump's impulse on these issues. I think I think the evidence is weak that this was ever
“an especially important issue in Trump's wheelhouse that caused him to win a lot, very weak, I think.”
But I'm confident now that with eight years of him being president, that's a loser and the opportunity for a better, not just a better political conversation on this, but for a better policy settlement on trade, right, for a better approach to the issue as a substantive matter is getting better and better with every Trump blender here. Very well put, and if Democrats won the mid-terms,
they can grab hold of this. Zach Baitchum, always good to talk to you, man. Thanks so much for
coming on. Of course.
