Charlie Angus continues to receive plenty of well-deserved attention for his work trying to focus on the dangers of the impending Trump administration - including his latest op-ed in the National Observer. And others are also engaging in some discussion about what it means to stand up to Trump. But having previously theorized that there's an important role for the NDP to play as the political organizing hub for resistance in Canada, I do think it's worth recognizing what that could mean in practice - and why we can't expect any other party to take it on.
Let's start by making clear what doesn't count as resistance. It's low-hanging fruit to claim surface-level disagreement with some of Trump's attempts to grab Canada by force when the issue is raised directly, while working hand in hand with his anti-democratic project in substance. And indeed that makes for a useful test as to what constitutes meaningful resistance: anything the Cons are willing to direct at their Republican cousins is best dismissed as being for show rather than having any meaning.
In discussing what options should be on the table, let's start by working on the structural obstacles to the protection of people endangered by Trump.
Most obviously, the Safe Third Country Agreement (put in place under a Lib government, and expanded in its application by Justin Trudeau) has become all the more risible when the U.S.' incoming administration is shrieking "mass deportation now!" as one of its organizing themes - making clear that safety and due process will not be available to anybody needing protection in or from the U.S. So it's worth putting pressure on the Libs to scrap their shameful agreement to ignore actual evidence, and instead make it a priority to ensure those who need to flee the U.S. have a safe place to go.
Failing that, the NDP should make the issue into a key platform plank. There's an opportunity to create a contrast against the Libs' immigration cutbacks by advocating for an open door - and offering logistical assistance and community support to those looking to move north.
Even where people may not qualify as refugees or asylum-seekers, it's both the right thing to do and a pragmatic choice to make sure that those with justified fears about Trump's America are able to find a home elsewhere. And it's in Canada's interest to welcome them - just as we've done by offering a place to previous waves of U.S. resisters.
And just as for individuals at the personal level, it's also worth setting up landing spots for the causes and industries which are set to beat the brunt of Trump's ire.
We know that Trump's administration is looking to destroy existing work in areas ranging from public health to medical research to clean energy - which represents both a severe potential loss for humanity as whole if it succeeds, and an opportunity for Canada to serve as a new base of operations if we make the case to offer a new base of operations. (And on this point too, the Libs' reaction thus far has been based primarily on conflict avoidance, rather than any plan which might provide an alternative to the Trump power structure.)
The main objection to the concept of taking in people and businesses from the U.S. is of course bound to be the one that gave rise to the Libs' immigration cutbacks in the first place, being the sense that we lack enough housing and other infrastructure already. But as an answer to that with some roots in existing policy proposals, I'd suggest that the idea of a civilian service corps be expanded beyond single-purpose uses, and put forward to meet general needs - including the repair and expansion of affordable housing (which could be the immediate priority), as well as longer-term work in the climate transition and the care economy.
Finally, beyond policy advocacy and promises, I'll suggest that the NDP and its activists should be at the forefront of building organizational infrastructure for a cross-border resistance movement.
At the moment, there are obvious fault lines in the media and communication tools being used by people on both sides of the border.
The U.S.' corporate media is signaling its willingness to comply in advance with Trump's directions; Canadians are only beginning to understand how the giant social media sites have become entirely unreliable as sources of information; and the general social media environment is in flux as Twitter/X has become too toxic for anybody paying even a modicum of attention, while the most promising replacement still has a long way to go in developing the kind of reach of its since-commandeered predecessor. And the U.S.' election result should serve as a warning that the connections in place to deliver information that doesn't serve corporate purposes aren't yet strong enough to reach the people who need to receive it.
But the rapid shift away from both X and the corporate press does seem to signal a substantial desire for alternatives to servants of the corporate elite. And in putting in the work to build and support those alternatives, there's a prospect not only of inching toward a less harmful information environment for this year's election, but also of setting up the foundations for the next set of primary information sources.
Meanwhile, the constant stream of news out of the Trump administration will also provide no end of opportunities to talk to people and engage them in the task of responding. And so Trump's ascent may also provide a spur to develop the type of person-to-person contact that may otherwise seem to be beyond our current capacity.
Obviously the above would represent a heavy lift which would need to be put in place in an extremely short period of time. And the strong and unfortunate likelihood is that we'll see the NDP follow its recent pattern of campaigning on small populist offerings and a general sense of "not like the other guys" - even when there's an obvious pivotal moment to be met.
But it's worth noting that even if it doesn't succeed in the short term, a demonstration of principle can pay off many times over in building a movement in the longer term: remember after all that the NDP's past surge in Quebec under the leadership of Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair can be traced to Tommy Douglas' principled resistance to even a popular use of martial law. And given how justifiably dubious Canadians are about the Trump regime, I'd think there's reason for optimism that the right position - in rallying opposition to a force which demands it - can also be a political winner.
[Edit: added link.]
