As Canadians from coast to coast exhale from a historic World Series that saw the Toronto Blue Jays come within an inch of defeating the heavily favoured Dodgers of Los Angeles, the rivalry with America simmers. Heated up last February during the Four Nations Hockey Tournament, ignited by this recent epic sports spectacle, and sure to catch fire again when the teams meet at the World Hockey Junior Championship and the Olympics in Cortina, the two nations seem to be on a virtual collision course every few months. The fuel keeping the flames raging has found sources in history, geography, and political leadership. In John Ibbitson’s recent work titled THE DUEL, he chronicles the rivalry between John Diefenbaker and Lester “Mike” Pearson in the 1950s and 1960s. Facing off in five consecutive elections, the two also battled with American presidents, specifically Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Diefenbaker developed a visceral disdain for Kennedy, finding his efforts to draft Canada into America’s role as the world’s police both dismissive and patronizing of Canada’s independence. Pearson had even less luck with Johnson, who set about a war in Southeast Asia that Pearson had no interest in supporting. They probably could never have imagined having to deal with someone like President Donald Trump. Regardless, Trump provides Canadians with more lessons than just becoming anti-American or paranoid of pushy New York businessmen.
Canadians have wrapped themselves in a patriotic blanket of democracy and freedom that they assume is superior to America’s. Listening to the dominant media on the CBC, CTV, or other standard news sources, they have come to associate Trump’s America as anti-democratic, authoritarian, and verging on a dictatorship. Many Canadians in the “elbows up” club also think that Trump not only threatens democracy, but he has already trampled upon its foundations with his Jan. 6 riot and other aspersions about the 2020 election. The space does not allow for all those topics to be addressed, but the myth of American democracy should be discussed. For those who have studied American government, this detail may seem obvious. Still, its lack of discourse reveals how little journalists know or accurately report about how democracy works in either country. America is a constitutional republic, not a parliamentary democracy. Somehow, this eludes much of the journalistic class in both countries. The difference should be noted, understood, and given proper airing when elections take place, votes occur in legislative bodies, or courts make rulings. One does not equal the other, and the lack of information or misinformation has led to an unfortunate outcome.
The American founders had no interest in a parliamentary democracy. They believed this could lead to what they called parliamentary tyranny, where a majority government had no checks, could pass whatever laws it wanted, avoid accountability, control committees, logjam investigative bodies, and eventually dismiss elections as unnecessary, theoretically creating dynasties and the eventual establishment of kingships. Having watched parliament operate in Britain and Canada, it would be hard to suggest they had no basis for such concerns.
Meanwhile, the founders proposed a system of government with a presidency that had certain powers, a legislature with responsibilities, and a judicial branch with obligations. They also wanted to avoid the tyranny of 51 per cent and set up checks and balances to minimize the branches’ ability to override one another. The theory was to ensure that the presidency did not become too powerful, the legislature would be forced to work together, and the judges would be left to decide the constitutionality of each branch’s actions. The Electoral College was specifically designed to place value upon each state’s interests. The popular vote has never been the deciding factor in the presidential race, only in each state’s count. Canadians have never understood this, and in recent elections, where one candidate received more votes, that somehow became a topic of unfairness. Hillary Clinton to this day scowls about her loss to Trump, even though she won the popular vote. Had she no understanding of how the process worked when she ran for the office? Whoever wins the most electoral votes earns the presidency. It protects large population areas from dominating smaller ones. In effect, it makes democracy more responsive and, in many ways, better than what happens in a parliamentary system. With coequal branches of government, the tendency to accumulate power dwindles.
Another feature of the Republic permits each state two representatives in the Upper Chamber of Congress. Regardless of size, every state elects two senators (originally appointed members until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913). California and its forty million people get two votes in the Senate, and so does tiny Wyoming, a population of less than 600,000. How can that be fair? The founders believed that the elected body (House of Representatives) should send representatives in proportion to the population. This would ensure population representation, but what about geography and resource importance? To address these concerns, the senators selected would be equal in number, forcing larger states to engage with smaller ones and consider their concerns when making legislative decisions. The genius of this statecraft has passed the test of time and serves America well when its leaders understand its function, respect its heritage and protect its practice.
No governmental system will endure if assaulted so boldly that the institutional framework sags under the weight of those committed to undermining or destroying it. John Adams, the man most associated with creating the American Experiment in 1776, once wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Those who would criticize the system, protest about the democratic shortcomings, or equate America’s Republic with Canada’s parliamentary democracy would do well to spend some time reading and use less energy reacting. The journalist class would benefit from an education steeped in the writings of Adams and Jefferson rather than America’s slave past (The 1619 Project or the mindless meanderings of Howard Zinn, whose textbook dominates many freshman history courses in American universities). Until then, dear reader, remain vigilant about what you hear reported. Is American democracy threatened, or are the tenets of its republican framework unfolding?
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
