The coming obsolescence of North American borders (Part 2)
Recent political trends and social mood update
Since this article might be truncated in the email format to be read in its entirety, I invite readers to access the online version on my Substack page.
When I wrote The coming obsolescence of North American borders back in 2021, making an historical case and reminding readers that political borders or governmental institutions are not marked in stone for eternity nor immutable, I laid the groundwork for what might unfold in the coming decades. Since then (see link below for the original piece), the North American political landscape has clearly continued trending towards some form of reconfiguration.
Increasing talks of secession, national divorce and states rights have picked up some steam in the United States. In Canada, provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have recently retaliated to the federal government’s tendency of encroaching on constitutional separation of powers and the historical cultural antagonism with Québec refuses to fade away. Not to mention a palpable and measurable mood shift in the population in general that can be observed in polls, social media trends and across the media landscape in general, as we will explore below.
On secession and constitutional battles
United States: Recent polls in the US are suggesting that secession from the union is not perceived as an impossibility or a far fetched idea anymore by the average citizen. When asked if they would consider supporting their state seceding from the union, many Americans respond favorably in surprising numbers. Some states like Texas, California and Alaska (as shown in the map below) have comparable numbers to the historical support Quebecers give to a Québec secession scenario.
What is intriguing and eye-opening in this data is the split by age group. The younger the age cohort, the stronger the support for secession. For 18 to 29 year olds, the sum of “Yes” and “Not Sure” exceeds the 60% mark with only 37% of respondents expressing a clear “No” to the question. Late-wave Millennials and Homelanders (Gen Z) seem particularly inclined to entertain this possibility. And since this generational shift will obviously keep accelerating in the years ahead, it will be interesting to monitor this cohort and measure their appetite for secession-style political change in the decade to come or if they will simply grow out of it.
State secession keeps trending so much in the United States that you regularly encounter social media posts similar to the one below. In this case a map depicting a fictional civil war scenario leading to the birth of new political entities. And even if such examples may represent only anecdotal evidence to support my present thesis, the aggregation of multiple factors - such as concrete jurisdiction battles, social polarization and tribal politics - are all pointing towards a serious overhaul of our contemporary political structures in the near future.
Hard to predict at this point if a reconfiguration will emerge from negotiation or by force, but the end result will be the same. Our current borders and constitutional compacts could crumble at lightning speed under the right conditions. While it most certainly won’t take the form it took in the 1860’s, we would be foolish to affirm with unwavering certainty such conflicts could never occur in our modern times. The smell of a hot civil war is surely an overstatement at this point in time but the battle between Blue and Red states in the US is a reality that need we need to contend with.
On the institutional front, a call far a Convention of states, as intended in Article V of the United States constitution (see below), has been initiated in recent years by grassroots movements of American citizens. To readers not familiar to this process, it is not your typical advocacy group putting pressure on government to push legislative proposals. It represents a serious attempt to open the possibility to modify the constitution based on a provision from this same document.
Still, we have to keep in mind than in more than 230 years of history, all attempts to call a Convention of States have failed. However, the present political climate might be more favorable for success. Case in point, simulations have been held already, close to twenty states have passed a Convention of States resolution in their State legislatures (see below) and the social media era clearly facilitates the coordination and mobilization of supporters.
In essence, the stated intention here is to limit the power of the federal government and bring back more self-governance at the level of the states, like the Founding Fathers intended.
From the official Convention of states website, we can read:
Our legislation calls for a Convention of States “limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress."
I could add more examples to this trend of course but in short, my contention is that all of them contribute for interesting times in the next decade or so. The escalating culture war, the demographic realignment across every political party, the deteriorating social mood and the decay of historically trusted institutions will eventually climax to significant political change.
And what about north of the border…
Canada: Most media attention has focused on US political polarization in recent years but Canada, aside from the superficial discourse from political pundits focusing on the so-called Trumpian influence in Canadian political rhetoric, is edging closer and closer to implosion as well. Which is all but surprising considering Canada was created on shaky grounds in the first place.
The contemporary political configuration of Canada is fairly young. The confederation was ratified as recently as 1867 and only four of the current provinces joined this new union at the time. The remaining provinces integrating the country mostly in the 20th century and Newfoundland joining last in 1949 by a thin margin following a referendum.
Why is this important ?
For starters, the timing of this union was not a coincidence in the history of North America. The birth of Canada was triggered in the context of a tumultuous civil war south of the border. Thus, Canada’s “raison d’être” stemmed mainly from a willingness to secure the British presence in the region more than anything else.
The genesis of Canada did not rest upon a creed of liberty and pursuit of happiness like its southern neighbor but emerged as a pragmatic solution to preserve a British commercial foothold in the hemisphere. Therefore, governing this diverse and uncommon country has been a challenge from the start and remains a struggle to this day as no strong political philosophy structures its foundation.
Journalist and writer
sums it up pretty well in the following quote:“ It bears keeping in mind that there were no Canadians, in the contemporary sense, prior to 1867. That is, there did not exist a group of people who saw themselves as a people, for whom the creation of the federal state of Canada was necessary for their autonomy, their self-government and their self-determination. Canada was a project that, more than anything, was a practical response to a set of economic, security and political issues, both domestic and foreign, that were of growing concern for the disparate colonies of British North America. “1
Andrew Potter
Being a fairly young political entity in its current state and historically formed outside the typical nation-state mold, Canada is not as stable as it is usually depicted by casual foreign observers. After multiple decades of low-intensity power struggles between the federal government and provinces, Canada might be ripe for significant structural change this time around.
Of course, in true Canadian fashion, the restructuring might look pale when comparing to other countries where social strife and political violence is rampant. We will witness rather an escalation of the Canadian style of political conflict which will take the form of another constitutional battle.
This time, brewing from its western region.
Alberta’s patience within the confederation is waning. For a province with an energy sector representing the key behind its wealth, remaining virtually landlocked can rapidly reduce your strategic options moving forward. Especially when the federal government in Ottawa, and even other provinces in the confederation such as Québec, has been lobbying hard for years to block pipeline projects while still benefiting from the influx of tax dollars from the oil and gas rich province.
I often wonder if this screaming hypocrisy within the federation has reached its expiration date. Fiscal imbalance, debt disparities between provinces and ideological battles could eventually reach a point of no return.
Even the usually low-profile province of Saskatchewan has recently took a decision which could be best described as a form of federal disobedience. Premier Scott Moe decided to stop collecting the federal carbon tax in his province. A move that would have been perceived as political science fiction not so long ago considering the history of the country.
In any case, since Ottawa keeps infringing on the province’s areas of jurisdiction such as health care, energy, education, and more, while performing poorly on their primary responsibilities like immigration policy, foreign affairs or the military, the future of federal-provincial relations will certainly get worst in the years ahead.
Even if the last constitutional battles date back to the early 1990’s, which ultimately lead to the failed Québec referendum on independence in 1995, the 2020’s have seen a resurgence of internal conflicts regarding roles and responsibilities for each level of government.
Of course, Québec still remains to this day the outlier in Canadian politics, sending a significant group of pro-independence members of parliament to the capital for the last 30 years but the potential breakup of Canada might come from a province like Alberta in the near future. The first domino to fall might come from the west. If Alberta starts waving the secession scare card, it could rapidly lead to a serious reconfiguration of the current constitution and Québec will likely follow in its footsteps to take advantage of the opportunity to improve its political autonomy.
For those who have been following Canadian politics since the 1990’s, this subject is certainly not a surprise. The difference this time around is that interprovincial relationships have not improved since then. The acrimony between conservative / more fiscally responsible provinces and liberal / welfare state leaning ones has been exacerbated in the last decade. The political divide has continued widening.
In closing, if the political battle ever heats up again in Canada, it would be fair to predict at this point that federalists won’t be organizing a Love-In event in Montréal like in 1995 to convince the French speaking province to vote NO in a referendum for independence.
The opposite might be true.
Andrew Potter: Canada needs to be stripped to its foundations (readtheline.ca)
Fascinating post and lots to think about for the future. I was not aware of much of the interplay between the state and federal level, especially in Canada, that you describe. I think in part many younger people don't really experience much benefit from the federal government and might therefore be more willing to try something new, whereas fhe older generations did experience a time where you could have a steady job, a house etc. Plus I can imagine that lacking a sense of nationhood or some kind of culture or community on the national level could make you wonder why you should be a part of it at all, especially when you are only giving and not getting enough back. In how far or in what cases would you think independence would actually solve some of these systemic issues?
The idea that British North America was the product of pure pragmatism is belied by the records of the Confederation debates. See the edited volume by the great Janet Ajzenstat.