Canadians Know Danielle Smith Is a Traitor, Right?

How Transnational Ideological Loyalty Is Replacing Democratic Sovereignty

Airdrie, Canada -Jul 13, 2022: United Conservative Party candidate Danielle Smith gives a speech at a local pub — Wirestock Creators / Shutterstock.com

A piece from The National Observer—which I'd never heard of before, but have now subscribed to—came across my Substack notes feed this evening. I read it. And then just had to stop and write about this.

The Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, sat on a stage in Florida alongside Ben Shapiro—a man who called Canada “a silly country” and advocated for its annexation by the United States—and discussed strategies to elect Canadian leaders who would be “solid allies” to Donald Trump. This happened at a $1,500-a-head fundraiser for PragerU, an organization that masquerades as an educational institution while functioning as a propaganda outlet, where they collectively raised over $1 million.

Let that sink in.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a Canadian provincial leader is openly coordinating with foreign political actors to influence Canadian elections in ways favorable to a foreign administration that has explicitly threatened Canada's sovereignty.

If we still possess even a minimal capacity for moral clarity, we need to call this what it is: treason. Not in the narrow legal sense that depends on specific statutory definitions, but in the fundamental moral sense of betraying one's country and its interests in favor of a foreign power.

“There was a massive conservative movement that's happening in Canada,” Shapiro said during the event. “I think the obstacles to that need to be removed. It is better for the United States to have actual solid allies running in Canada than to have some of the schmucks that have been running Canada over the past few years.”

To which Smith replied, “I think the President recognizes especially the importance of oil and gas,” adding that “We already ship about 4.3 million barrels a day of oil to the United States. We'll keep it coming.”

This conversation didn't happen in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of Trump imposing costly economic tariffs on Canada and explicitly threatening to annex the country, saying in mid-March that “Canada only works as a state.” When Shapiro joked about this annexation, calling Canada “our soon-to-be 51st state,” Smith didn't defend Canadian sovereignty. She didn't express outrage at the violation of international norms this would represent. She said, "I come in peace," to loud applause from the American audience.

This is a profound betrayal that transcends ordinary political disagreement. This isn't about conservative versus liberal policies or differing visions of Canada's future. This is about whether Canada should exist as a sovereign nation at all, or whether it should subordinate its interests to those of a foreign administration.

The moral emptiness of Ben Shapiro in this exchange is almost secondary to Smith's betrayal, but it deserves mention nonetheless. This is a man who built his brand on supposedly principled conservatism and logical consistency, yet here he is advocating for a foreign country to interfere in Canadian elections to install leaders who will be “solid allies” to Trump. He jokes about annexing Canada, calling it “a silly country that makes maple syrup, hockey and annoying prime ministers,” adding that “we can annex it and then just call it an outlying territory or something like Puerto Rico, but of the North.”

What principle is being advanced here? What consistent conservative value does this represent? None. It's naked power politics dressed up as ideological alignment—the assertion that Canada should be subordinated to American interests because its current leadership doesn't align with Shapiro's preferences.

The setting for this betrayal is equally revealing. PragerU isn't a university at all—it's a content factory masquerading as an educational institution. It packages ideological propaganda in pseudo-academic wrapping to give it the veneer of intellectual legitimacy. This is where Smith chose to appear—at a fundraiser for an organization that pretends to be about education while functioning as a partisan propaganda outlet. A partisan project that wants to annex the country that she represents as one of its provincial premiers.

Smith has defended her appearance by saying “the way you actually influence the decision on tariffs is you talk to American influencers.” But this wasn't a diplomatic mission to protect Canadian interests. This was active coordination to elect Canadian leaders who would prioritize alignment with Trump over Canada's own sovereignty and well-being.

Even more disturbing, Smith has refused to condemn efforts by a group of Albertans advocating for Alberta statehood within the U.S., suggesting that “a referendum on statehood would be an appropriate way to deal with separatist sentiment.” This isn't just flirting with separatism; it's openly entertaining the possibility of a Canadian province becoming part of a foreign country.

The fundamental betrayal here isn't just of Canada as a political entity but of the very idea that a nation should determine its own future based on the interests and values of its citizens. Smith is advocating for a form of client-state relationship where Canadian leadership would be selected not for their commitment to Canadian interests but for their willingness to serve as “solid allies” to a foreign administration.

This raises profound questions about the nature of democratic sovereignty in an age of transnational ideological alignment. What does national interest even mean when elected officials openly subordinate their country's autonomy to foreign powers with whom they share ideological commitments? What happens to democratic accountability when politicians pledge primary allegiance not to their constituents but to foreign leaders who share their worldview?

The danger here extends far beyond Canada. What they represent is a world in which ideological loyalty overrides national duty. Where sovereignty is expendable, and democracy is optional. In this vision, the primary loyalty of the right-wing Premier of Alberta isn't to Canada or even to Alberta, but to a global right-wing movement personified by Trump.

This is why Smith's betrayal matters beyond Canada's borders. It's a window into how democracy itself is being redefined—from a system where leaders are accountable to their citizens to one where they're primarily committed to transnational ideological interests that see national sovereignty as an obstacle to be overcome.

The urgent question for Canadians is whether they recognize the gravity of what's happening. This isn't normal politics. It isn't just another example of provincial-federal tension or western alienation. It's an elected Canadian official actively coordinating with foreign actors to undermine Canadian sovereignty—and doing so openly, with apparent confidence that there will be no meaningful consequences.

If this doesn't provoke widespread outrage and condemnation across the political spectrum, it suggests that we've already normalized a level of betrayal that would have been unthinkable in previous eras. It suggests that we've accepted a form of politics where national loyalty is secondary to ideological alignment, where service to foreign interests can be repackaged as principled conservatism.

Canadians need to decide if this is acceptable. They need to decide if a provincial premier actively working with foreign political figures to elect “solid allies” to a foreign administration—while that administration threatens annexation and imposes punitive tariffs—crosses a line that demands response. They need to decide if jokes about becoming the “51st state” from someone in a position of significant power represent harmless banter or a profound betrayal of what Canada stands for.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a Canadian provincial leader openly coordinating with foreign actors to undermine Canadian sovereignty while that foreign power threatens annexation is engaging in behavior that in any other era would be recognized for what it is: treason.

The moral clarity required here isn't complex. It doesn't depend on partisan alignment or policy preferences. It depends only on the basic understanding that elected officials in a democracy owe their primary loyalty to their own citizens and country, not to foreign powers who share their ideology.

If we can't achieve that minimal level of moral clarity—if we can't call this betrayal what it is—then we've already surrendered something essential to democratic self-governance. We've already accepted that national sovereignty is negotiable, that loyalty to country is optional, that service to foreign interests can be repackaged as political virtue.

Danielle Smith has made her choice clear. She has chosen alignment with Trump and Shapiro over loyalty to Canada. She has chosen to help “remove obstacles” to electing Canadian leaders who will be “solid allies” to a foreign administration that has threatened Canada's very existence as a sovereign nation.

Now Canadians must make their choice. They must decide whether such a betrayal is disqualifying for public office, or whether it represents a new normal in which national loyalty is subordinate to ideological alignment. They must decide whether Danielle Smith's actions represent a breach of trust so fundamental that it cannot be overlooked or explained away.

The answer seems obvious. But in an era where the most basic democratic norms are regularly violated without consequence, nothing can be taken for granted. The test is not just for Smith, but for all Canadians who still believe that their country deserves leaders who put its interests first.

That is, of course, my opinion from my vantage point here in Los Angeles. From a country that should be defending democratic principles, not undermining them. Sorry, Canada. For our profound moral failings.

“The first duty of a man is to think for himself” — José Martí