‘The big question is what comes next’: Oren Cass on Trump and the ideological realignment reshaping America
You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify.
Episode Description
Oren Cass, founder and chief economist at American Compass, discusses what’s driving the Trump administration’s aggressive new approach to trade in North America and around the world. Cass explains why the New Right rejects the old “America as benevolent hegemon” model, how tariffs fit into its broader vision of balanced trade relationships, and where its thinking diverges from both traditional conservatism and the New Left. He also explores what this realignment means for labour policy, industrial strategy, the future of the Republican coalition, and ultimately Canada.
This episode is produced in partnership with the New North America Initiative at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. From the shifting ideologies of the new Right and the new Left in the U.S., this multi-month series will bring Canadians inside debates on trade, globalization, and power that are likely to shape America’s policy direction—and Canada’s interests—for the years and decades to come.
The New North America Initiative is generously funded in part by the Government of Alberta.
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this multimedia content do not necessarily represent those of the New North America Initiative, the School of Public Policy, or the University of Calgary. This content has been made available for informational purposes, and our role in production does not constitute an endorsement.
Episode Summary
The United States is pursuing a fundamental reassessment of its role in the global trading system, marking a departure from decades of policy that prioritized maintaining international order even at domestic cost. This shift reflects growing questions about whether the traditional approach remains viable or beneficial for American interests.
The changing stance has created notably different dynamics with North American trading partners. Mexico has shown openness to adapting to new realities, while Canada has taken a more resistant approach. This divergence is influencing how negotiations proceed, with the possibility that agreements with the two countries may follow separate paths rather than remaining unified under existing frameworks.
The reassessment encompasses both security and economic dimensions. On defense, concerns center on burden-sharing within alliances, where the United States has historically shouldered disproportionate costs. Recent acknowledgments from European and Asian allies suggest recognition that previous arrangements may have involved free-riding on American military spending.
The economic component focuses on trade imbalances and their long-term consequences. For years, the United States has served as the consumer of last resort, absorbing exports while running persistent deficits. While this arrangement provided cheap consumer goods, it has increasingly been viewed as unsustainable, contributing to industrial decline and regional economic deterioration. The initial promise that expanding markets would create opportunities for American workers has not materialized as anticipated.
These concerns intersect with national security considerations. Policymakers increasingly recognize that maintaining military dominance requires preserving domestic manufacturing capacity. The erosion of industrial capabilities raises questions about long-term strategic resilience.
American political discourse shows growing convergence on diagnosing economic challenges, even as disagreement persists about solutions. Conservative circles have moved away from denying problems exist, now acknowledging stagnant wage growth, rising inequality, and industrial base erosion. Divergence remains on questions of international engagement and the extent to which American policy should prioritize global versus domestic outcomes.
The emerging approach rejects the notion that what benefits the global system automatically benefits the United States. Instead, it demands clear explanations of how policies serve American interests, moving away from assumptions that preserving international arrangements inherently helps the country.
This represents a shift from economic models that emphasized maximizing consumption above all else. Traditional trade theory assumed balanced trade would naturally occur and that capital immobility would prevent certain disruptions. These assumptions have proven incorrect, leading to reconsideration of fundamental premises.
The new framework places greater emphasis on balanced trading relationships rather than accepting persistent imbalances as acceptable outcomes. It challenges the notion that asymmetric arrangements where countries send goods in exchange for debt instruments constitute healthy economic relationships.
Implementation of this vision remains incomplete. The administration has successfully convinced trading partners that previous arrangements are no longer viable, prompting negotiations rather than retaliation. However, success depends on alignment across multiple dimensions: defense burden-sharing, trade balance, and approach toward China.
The requirement for comprehensive alignment has created particular challenges with Canada, where policies on Chinese trade and investment conflict with American objectives. This has elevated North American trade issues despite larger imbalances existing with other partners, reflecting the strategic importance of regional coordination.
This summary was prepared by NewsBox AI. Please check against delivery.
How might ideological shifts in the U.S. regarding trade and globalization impact Canada's economic interests in the coming years?
Given the focus on 'power' in the U.S. debates, what specific aspects of American power are most likely to influence Canada's policy direction?
How could the 'new Right' and 'new Left' ideologies in the U.S. reshape America's policy direction, and what are the potential consequences for international cooperation?
Comments (2)
An interesting conversation which I will have to listen too again to fully digest. Echoes of Leviathan on first hearing though, with much of 21st century reality as I perceive it bracketed out.