Wow! This is a great analysis/comparison of both Trump and Carney.

Copied ⬇️

Some negotiations are easy; others are destined to fail given intractable issues, including the personalities of negotiators, their values, style, character, and other difficult issues. Was it ordained that a negotiation between Donald Trump and Mark Carney would be successful?

In my 35 years as a part-time representative of hockey players, which included negotiating their contracts, one can imagine the different personalities and styles of the team representatives. Cliff Fletcher of the Calgary Flames and Serge Savard of the Montreal Canadiens were my favourite GMs — classy, trustworthy, smart, successful, and with a record of treating their employees well.

But they presented a problem as their best offers came first — they both wanted to be seen as fair-minded. Adjusting to the counterparty, I learned to discuss the length of term, dollars, and other issues with my clients so as to negotiate prior to their offers.

The existence of an NHL-NHLPA arbitration process helps the consummation of agreements, as no one is comfortable with a third-party determination. Welcome to Donald Trump and the world, without an arbitrator. From the New York real estate world and his ever-hungry need for validation, Canada is an easy pigeon.

Enter Mark Carney — educated, expensive Savile Row suits, a globalist climate pedigree, but with the same propensity as Trump to bend or break the truth. The sociopathic real estate entrepreneur from New York City and the slick Oxford and Harvard-educated global elitist are not destined to go for drinks together following a negotiation.

But an interesting irony is the similarity in the governance of their respective countries. They are both top-down, command-and-control freaks, dismissive of others, and not pleasant when they don't get their way.

Carney is a superior socialist (aren’t they all) who starts with “human values,” rejecting market principles. Should his intellect, education, and global climate leadership entitle him to dictate policy in a country that, without checks and balances, he effectively controls? His grinding ambition suggests Canada is just a stepping stone to a greater global role, like the Secretary-General of the United Nations, where he was a Special Envoy.

Despite his autocratic tendencies, Trump is a great believer in markets, freedom, and the United States of America. While right-sizing the role of the US in its global leadership was coming anyway (as well as perhaps more national policies expressed through tariffs?), his tariff policy, or rapidly changing policies, is damaging established world markets and will reduce respect for the US.

As neither man displays any iota of self-doubt, wasn't a clash between Canada and the US inevitable?

Another important dimension — while one often needs to sift through the aggressive verbiage — many of Trump’s observations and actions are valid.

He is right in identifying Canada and other NATO members as free riders with respect to military obligations.

He is also determined that Iran will not develop nuclear bomb capability — the Iranian leadership is predictable in its religious extremism, still massacring its own people.

Is there any doubt the development of a nuclear bomb would result in the annihilation of Israel? And who’s next?

Trump has achieved many things not thought possible — for example, the Abraham Accords, which fashioned a peace treaty between Israel and several Gulf Muslim states and the quiet support of Saudi Arabia. For the first time ever regarding this persistent conflict, his unlikely success brought together diverse religions, governance models, and interests to focus on one of the world’s trouble spots, perhaps reducing potential damaging escalation.

While his grandiose Gaza peace plan has stalled, there is at least a kernel of hope in what has been an intractable problem for decades. What is wrong with trying?

This global approach is much preferable to Carney's response for the two-state solution with no semblance of any state whatsoever in Gaza. His voter-sensitive need for power led to “Muslim values are Canadian values.” This grossly inaccurate comment, demeaning Canada, can only be driven by the fact that there are more than a million Muslims and fewer than 400 thousand Jewish citizens in Canada today. Dare I say ‘votes trump principles’?

Trump has said several provocative things about Canada, for example, “Canada is not a country” — true, as many of us in the West, without any say about how we are governed, do not enjoy the attributes of democracy like citizens of Quebec and Ontario.

One of the best definitions of a country is a geographic grouping of people who want to do great things together. While acknowledging there is no universally accepted description, the constant and growing discontent expressed by Quebec and much of the West suggests Canada is a fragile and divided country. Failure to address the discontinuities will continue to minimize the incredible potential of a united country, but only so with fully democratic institutions and mutual internal respect.

This could be a unique opportunity for Carney to lead a dramatic restructuring of Canada. It would require long-term wisdom and courage to include the disenfranchised regions, or at least gracefully facilitate a different arrangement that acknowledges the legitimate grievances.

Both Carney and Trump could ask themselves — should reform prevail over my current preferences, establishing an historical moment? Is this really Trump’s agenda, or are tariffs just a mechanism for more revenue to remedy the financial risk of a US default, tainting the world’s currency?

A reasonable and timely outcome is probably unrealistic — fasten your seat belts as we are headed to an unpredictable destination.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/pinder-trump-vs-carney-two-egos-are-colliding-to-break-us-canada-relations/76570