In the mid-2010s, prominent voices on Canada’s progressive left, including those aligned with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s vision, leaned heavily into the idea of Canada as a “post-national state.” Trudeau himself famously told *The New York Times* in 2015 that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” framing the country as a mosaic of identities unbound by traditional nationalism. This rhetoric dovetailed with a broader movement to reckon with Canada’s colonial past, exemplified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 report, which labeled the residential school system a “cultural genocide.” Activists and academics pushed to dismantle symbols of national pride, arguing they propped up a settler-colonial legacy. Flags flew at half-mast for 161 days in 2021—over five months—following the alleged “discovery” of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, a gesture that underscored a narrative of shame rather than unity. Patriotism, in this view, was suspect, a relic of a Canada that needed deconstructing.
Fast forward to 2025, and the same progressive cohort now clutches the maple leaf with newfound zeal, spurred by fears of American annexation—whether economic, cultural, or political. The phrase “elbows up, just say no” has surfaced in leftist circles online, a gritty call to resist U.S. influence amid trade disputes and border security debates. This nationalist hyperbole marks a stark pivot from the earlier disdain for Canada-as-nation. Where once the Canadian identity was a punching bag—think of the 2020 toppling of Sir John A. Macdonald’s statue in Montreal by activists decrying his role in Indigenous oppression—now it’s a shield against the Stars and Stripes. The irony is palpable: a movement that spent years driving the notion of “Canadian-ness” into the ground suddenly hoists it aloft when sovereignty feels threatened.
So where was this patriotism when Canada’s symbols and history were being systematically dismantled? The progressive left’s about-face reveals a selective nationalism, dormant when reckoning with internal flaws but roused when an external foil like the United States looms large. The 2021 half-mast marathon, meant to signal humility, left little room for pride in the nation’s resilience or achievements. Yet today, as trade tensions flare—U.S. tariffs on Canadian lumber hit 17.99% in 2024, per the U.S. Department of Commerce—the same voices rally to “protect our way of life.” It’s a jarring contrast: a Canada once deemed unworthy of celebration is now a hill to die on, exposing the fluidity of ideology when convenience calls. The lesson? National identity, it seems, is only as disposable as the threat du jour allows.




12 comments
April 5, 2025 at 6:17 am
Sumi
I’m not sure I see the irony here. It’s a basic feature of human behaviour that group identity is strengthened in the face of threats and relaxed when not under threat.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 6:20 am
Carmen
Ummm. . . And that SAME irony isn’t coming from the right? Poilievre spent how many years yammering about Canada being broken. .yada, yada. Give us a break, Arb! Take your blinders off, please!! I find myself shaking my head every time I tune into your blog. It didn’t used to be like that. :(
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 5, 2025 at 6:22 am
Carmen
Oh, and I have a glitch that makes it impossible to ‘like’ comments. Consider your previous comment ‘liked’, Sumi.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 7:47 am
The Arbourist
@Sumi
The irony isn’t just that group identity strengthens under threat—that’s a fair point about human behavior—but that this particular group, Canada’s progressive left, spent years explicitly rejecting and deconstructing Canadian national identity as a flawed, colonial construct, only to flip the script and wield it as a unifying rallying cry when the U.S. looms large. It’s not a simple ebb and flow of cohesion; it’s a 180-degree turn from their own prior rhetoric and actions.
Take Trudeau’s 2015 New York Times interview: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” That wasn’t a casual remark—it echoed a broader progressive vision of Canada as a “post-national state,” where traditional nationalism was suspect, even oppressive. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 report fueled this, branding the residential school system “cultural genocide” and sparking a movement to tear down symbols of national pride. Sir John A. Macdonald’s statue wasn’t just toppled in Montreal in 2020 by random vandals—activists targeted it as a settler-colonial relic, with cheers from progressive voices online and little pushback from the left-leaning establishment. Flags at half-mast for 161 days in 2021 after the alleged unmarked graves discovery weren’t a quiet reflection—they were a deliberate, prolonged statement of national shame, sidelining any narrative of resilience or unity.
Now, fast forward to 2025. Those same progressive circles are chanting “elbows up, just say no” on X, clutching the maple leaf to fend off American influence—economic (like the 17.99% U.S. lumber tariffs in 2024) or cultural. This isn’t just identity “strengthening” under threat; it’s a cohort that once argued Canadian-ness was too tainted to celebrate now framing it as a sacred “way of life” worth defending. The irony is in the selectivity: they trashed the nation’s symbols and history when reckoning internally, but when the U.S. flexes, that same identity—previously a punching bag—becomes their shield. If threat alone explains it, where was this fervor when Canada’s own past was the enemy? The pivot suggests national pride isn’t just dormant until needed—it’s disposable until convenient.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 7:54 am
The Arbourist
@Carmen
Fair point—irony can cut both ways, and the right isn’t immune. Pierre Poilievre has indeed spent years hammering the “Canada is broken” line, railing against Trudeau’s governance on everything from housing costs to inflation. But that’s the opposition’s job: to spotlight flaws, challenge the ruling party, and offer an alternative. The Conservatives, for all their griping, haven’t disavowed Canadian identity itself—Poilievre’s critique is about execution, not the nation’s core. His rhetoric leans on fixing Canada, not deconstructing it. The progressive left’s shift, though, is different: it’s not just criticism of policy but a pivot from rejecting national identity as colonial baggage (think Trudeau’s “no core identity” in 2015 or the 2021 half-mast marathon) to hoisting it as a shield against U.S. influence in 2025. That’s the irony I’m getting at—less about opposition-style problem-pointing, more about an ideological U-turn.
As for the blog’s tone, I get the frustration. It’s shifted, no question. But Canada’s political landscape has too. The move away from classical liberal values—individual liberty, free markets, limited government—toward centralized control, identity politics, and progressive orthodoxy has been stark under Trudeau. Think carbon taxes, Bill C-16’s speech rules, or the 2022 Emergencies Act invocation against truckers. That’s not the Canada of old, and it’s rattled those who prized the old principles. I think I’m likely reflecting that drift—less blinders, more a reaction to a country tilting from its roots.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 8:18 am
Carmen
I guess I just don’t see what you are seeing. Perhaps I am wearing rose-coloured glasses? ;). I see a new man at the helm. . Realizing that there are problems that needed to be addressed, from Trudeau overstaying his time in office. I do see that our liberal values may have swung too far to the left. . And that it’s time to bring the pendulum back to the middle. Perhaps I’m old, but the person bashing (which seemed to be Poilievre’s only ‘policy’) seemed copied from our neighbour to the south. .something that I find absolutely abhorrent. Anything that resonates with that negativity I reject.
And for the record, I voted Green in the last federal election. It seemed to me that climate change was the pressing issue. (It still is, for that matter). I just wrote to our MP (Conservative) on Friday, expressing the sentiment that I actually think he is doing a good job representing our area. Our provincial Premier is Conservative and he is doing a good job. Our local MLA is Conservative — another guy doing a good job – I know him well. Had his children in school. I told him that I feel all three of them are men of integrity. However, as I explained, I will be voting Liberal because I do not see Poilievre as having that same quality. Sorry, but I just don’t. We are all witnessing what happens when someone with zero personal integrity is given a position of power. It’s devastating. Let’s all hope it doesn’t happen here. I have eight grandchildren, Arb.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 8:49 am
The Arbourist
@Carmen
Carmen, Canada tends to swap governments every decade or so—same shite, different pile, sure, but it does reset the grift. The Liberal corruption’s hit its expiry date; we need a spring cleaning to clear out the cronyism. Even if new muck creeps in later, that brief window of actual governance is worth it right now.
I get where you’re coming from—I used to be deep Left myself. Flip back five years on this blog, and you’d see me parroting the progressive activist line: slick half-truths that sound noble but crumble under scrutiny. That’s why I’ve shifted. It’s no coincidence “Maple Maga” is trending or that Poilievre’s being painted as Trump 2.0. The U.S. annexation hype? Pure fearmongering from a biased legacy media—why would a conservative presidency want a bloc of left-leaning voters tanking their elections? It’s calculated narrative warfare to herd people toward certain parties, and it’s got to be called out.
I can’t back a Liberal party that’s put men in women’s prisons and rape crisis centers, sidelined female cabinet members, and fueled division with identity politics—all while turning a blind eye to equal justice (Toronto ‘pray-ins,’ campus antisemitism). That’s not the liberal values I grew up with—it’s a pendulum swung too far.
What keeps Canada special, though, is that we can hash this out civilly. Disagreement’s how we inch closer to truth, wherever it lands on the spectrum. I’m all in for Making Truth Great Again—rose-coloured glasses or not, I bet you’d agree that’s worth chasing for your eight grandkids’ sake. :)
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 8:56 am
Carmen
Thank you for that, Arb. I agree with you on the second-to-last paragraph and have been on that ‘side’ for a long time. I really hope that you are right about hashing things out civilly – I like to think we just see different ends of the spectrum on, say, the trucker’s convoy – but I am increasingly seeing the ‘great divide’ in our own country and reading the same kind of divisive rhetoric that populates the country next door. It has got me very worried, especially for my grandchildren.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 5, 2025 at 9:40 am
The Arbourist
@ Carmen
Carmen, it’s always a joy sparring with you. I genuinely value when someone pushes back on my take—it forces me to double-check my lens, tweak my aim, or even rethink what I’m seeing. Your perspective sharpens mine, and that’s gold.
Honest, charitable disagreement isn’t just blog fuel—it’s the bedrock of a healthy society. On things like the trucker convoy, yeah, we might be eyeing opposite ends of the spectrum, and that’s okay. But I hear you on the ‘great divide’ creeping in. It’s real—rhetoric’s getting sharper, lines are hardening, and you can feel echoes of the U.S. mess seeping north. It’s not just politics; it’s how we’re talking past each other, from campuses to coffee shops. For your grandkids’ sake, I’m betting on our knack for civility to hold the line—not to erase the gaps, but to keep them from swallowing us whole. Here’s to proving that’s still possible, one chat at a time. :)
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 10:04 am
Carmen
I can’t put a ‘heart’ on your comment (like I do on Instagram) but consider it visualized.
LikeLike
April 5, 2025 at 10:09 am
The Arbourist
:)
LikeLike
April 12, 2025 at 5:00 am
The McGill Protests: A Violation of Free Speech and Canadian Values | Dead Wild Roses
[…] blog post *The Oblivious Irony of Canada’s Progressive Left* provides a stark illustration of this trend, noting, “The progressive left’s obsession with […]
LikeLike