logo
This Fourth of July, the world declares its independence from America

This Fourth of July, the world declares its independence from America

The Guardian2 days ago
This year, like every other year, Americans will celebrate Independence Day with flag-waving, and parades, and fireworks. The political system the flag and the parades and fireworks are supposed to represent is in tatters, but everybody likes a party. It was 249 years ago, when the United States separated from the British Empire. Over the past year it has separated from the world order it built over those 249 years, and from basic sanity and decency as well. For Americans, the madness gripping their country is a catastrophe. For non-Americans, it is an accidental revolution. This Independence Day, the world is declaring its independence from the US.
As the United States retreats from the world, it is reshaping the lives of its former trading partners and allies, leaving huge holes in its wake. For Canada, where I live, the sudden absence of a responsible United States has been more shocking and more terrifying than for other countries. Americans are our friends and neighbours, often our family. We have been at peace with them for 200 years, integrating with their security apparatuses and markets. Now they are explicitly planning to weaken us economically in order to annex us.
The Canadian strategy, undertaken with vigor by the newly elected government of Mark Carney, has been clear in spirit at least: a polite 'go fuck yourself.' After you've told America to fuck off, though, the real work starts. You have to figure out how to live without them.
Carney has already signed major pieces of legislation to lower trade barriers inside the country, to create new trading partners, and to cement security arrangements with the European Union. But those are only the obvious beginnings. Since Donald Trump's inauguration, I have been working on Gloves Off, an audio series trying to figure out how Canada can navigate the post-American world. I've been shocked by how much needs to be done. Canada is like a beautiful mansion with huge chunks of the foundation missing. We don't even have our own secret service, just an internal security apparatus. Our military would be comically unprepared for an American annexation. Large scale-changes to national life – becoming a nuclear power, undertaking a whole society defense – may be required to survive a neighbour who is backsliding into authoritarianism every week.
Under protection from America, under the assumption that its economy was globally dominant, Canada has never had to ask itself hard questions. Now we're facing a pop quiz with terrifying consequences.
The decline of America leaves a psychological gap, too. America, for all its problems, was aspirational. It was easy to poke holes in its claims to exceptionalism, but it genuinely served millions of people, myself definitely included, as a beacon of freedom and openness. But I keep thinking of that line from No Country for Old Men, just before Anton Chigurh kills Carson Wells in a hotel: 'If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?'
Its great founders knew America's vulnerabilities from inception. Washington predicted, almost exactly, the effects of partisanship the country is undergoing today: 'The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,' he wrote in his Farewell Address. 'But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.' Abraham Lincoln saw it all coming: 'If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.' The suicide is tackier than anyone imagined, but it's been predicted since 1776.
One of the great ironies of history is that the triumph of Maga has led to the piecemeal destruction of everything that once made America great, and on every level. Its power derived from a reliable trade network, with logistical chains that were the wonders of the world, combined with a huge alliance network, and the greatest scientific and technological institutes in the world. It is systematically destroying all of those strengths far more thoroughly than any enemy could.
America is turning away from itself, and the rest of the world must follow. The new independence requires frankness, even brutality. There is no such thing as a deal with America any more. Canada and Mexico made one with Trump in 2018. He broke it at the first possible opportunity. Their national word is worthless. They understand only force and money, and increasingly not even those. Their military actions are more or less random, half-considered, about as deep and significant as a social media rage post. They instantly forget who helped or hurt them. All those Afghans who saved American lives a decade ago have lived to regret it, being deported, just for the spectacle of it all, back to their torturers. There is exactly no security in being their ally. If the American government declares war on something – poverty, drugs, Islamic terrorism, anti-democratic governments – you can be quite sure that whatever they're opposed to will be much stronger by the end of the fighting.
US scholars of fascism are fleeing to Toronto, and the city has become a kind of lens through which to see the American collapse. Canada sees what America is becoming. Travel from Canada to the United States is down 45% year over year which is partly a political statement by way of boycott, but it's also a demonstration of common sense: America has made it perfectly clear that foreigners are unwelcome and subject to violence with total impunity. But the simplest way to explain the need to step away from the United States is the most basic: no problem the world faces has an answer that can be found in America. Not politically, not economically, not socially, not culturally.
It is clear that we have to start looking for answers to the world's problems elsewhere, in ourselves and in others. There is a celebration of independence this Independence Day and it is real; it's just for countries other than America. The lesson the Americans once taught the British, they are teaching the rest of the world: there are no necessary nations. There are no exceptional countries. There are no permanent global orders. There's just more history, and trying to survive to stay yourself it.
Stephen Marche lives in Toronto and is the author of The Next Civil War and On Writing and Failure
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Many say Elon Musk 'wants to be the US President' – but there's reason he can't
Many say Elon Musk 'wants to be the US President' – but there's reason he can't

Daily Mirror

time20 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

Many say Elon Musk 'wants to be the US President' – but there's reason he can't

Elon Musk has announced that his new America Party has been "formed" in what appears to be a dig at former ally-turned-foe Donald Trump, sparking speculation that he could be looking to run for presidency himself Elon Musk has declared that his new America Party has been "formed", seemingly taking a swipe at his one-time ally, now adversary, Donald Trump. The tech mogul floated the idea of creating a new political force on X on America's Independence Day (July 4), asking followers if he should establish a party to rival Democrats and Republicans, despite having financially supported the GOP in the previous election with a hefty sum. The poll results showed a significant 65.4% of the 1.2 million respondents backing the formation of a new America Party, although the actual number of American citizens among them remains uncertain. The next day on July 5, Elon Musk, 54, took to X to proclaim: "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" ‌ He lambasted the current political system, saying: "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." ‌ Speculation has since erupted on X over whether Musk harbours presidential ambitions. One user emphatically posted: "ELON MUSK HAS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED THE FORMATION OF 'AMERICA PARTY.' Its Time for President Elon." Another queried the X community: "If Elon Musk ran for president, would you vote for him?" A third sceptically remarked: "Elon Musk really thinks he can be president." Yet, there's a significant hurdle in his path. Why can't Elon Musk be US President? Elon Musk, the tech mogul behind Tesla and SpaceX, is barred from running for US President due to constitutional restrictions. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution stipulates that only a natural-born citizen can hold the presidential office, which excludes South African-born Musk despite his US citizenship. ‌ What does Trump think about the issue? Donald Trump has weighed in on the topic, dismissing any possibility of Musk taking over the presidency. Speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2024, Trump addressed rumours about Musk's growing political clout. "President Trump has ceded the presidency to Elon Musk? No, no, that's not happening," Trump declared. "But no, he's not going to be president, that I can tell you. And I'm safe. You know why he can't be? He wasn't born in this country," he continued. ‌ Musk himself has consistently dismissed the idea of pursuing a political career, citing both the constitutional barrier and his lack of interest in holding office. "My grandfather was American, but I was born in Africa, so I cannot be president," Musk acknowledged last year. "But I actually don't want to be president. I want to build rockets and cars. "I believe we want to be a spacefaring civilisation, and that's where my focus will remain."

The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The Guardian

time29 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%. In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone. Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion. There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting. To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast. But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice. Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.) A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally. Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved. When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign. The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible. Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections. David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count

Musk is about to unleash more havoc on America
Musk is about to unleash more havoc on America

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Musk is about to unleash more havoc on America

In the 2004 comedy Team America, a group of freelancing Thunderbird-style puppets romp around the world, saving mankind from a coalition of terrorists and liberal Hollywood actors. It was hard not to bring the film to mind last night when Elon Musk announced a new 'America Party'. That was my first thought. My second was: thank God Rupert Lowe doesn't have $400 billion. It is, as my mother often says, 'very easy to mock'. Nonetheless, although such a party would be unlikely to win a future election – if it did, it would be the first time in history that a third-party candidate became president – it could unleash even more chaos upon the American political system and even more volatility upon the world. That could be the whole point. The announcement of the America Party was the latest escalation in a war of words between the two most powerful men on Earth over Donald Trump's signature megabill. As the legislation made its way through the Senate, Musk became furiously opposed to it. 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their heads in shame!,' he posted on X on Monday. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.' Not to be outdone, Trump fired back on his own social media site, Truth Social. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE,' he wrote. 'Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!' The bill was signed into law on July 4. Then came the announcement of the America Party. We mock at our peril. As the richest man on Earth, Musk's net worth is the equivalent of the GDP of mid-ranking countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia. To put that in context, the 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since 1998, behind only the 2020 race, which was the most costly on record. Donald Trump's latest victory cost about half-a-billion dollars in candidate committee cash, and about a billion in outside money. Musk could comfortably drop three or four times that sum on the America Party without his eyes watering. He could also fund a private army the size of Britain's Armed Forces (annual budget: £57 billion) to go with it, should his ambitions take a more Team America turn. With a political megaforce like this unleashed upon the United States, unpredictable numbers of votes would be hijacked both from the Democrats and Republicans. We would witness a three-way rhetorical battle, with Donald Trump's legendary bile haemorrhaging in all directions and the whole catastrophe given rocket boosters – almost literally – by social media. But there are big caveats. Although Musk's post on X seemed unequivocal – 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' he wrote – no paperwork has been filed to the Federal Election Commission for the formation of a political entity by that name. Given the impulsiveness that social media encourages and the volatile characters of the two big beasts, it is quite possible that by this time next week, Musk will have abandoned his political ambitions and once again be a card-carrying member of Team Trump. On the other hand, it is just as likely that the feud may have gone interstellar. All of this is terrible for America. In the final analysis, this latest bombastic move is a gesture of spite by a man with a gold-plated god complex and a social media platform. But it is more than a fight between two Thunderbird-style caricatures competing for the attention of America. The tragedy of the episode is that Musk's poll on X revealed that a majority of users felt that no political party was speaking for them. That is a real problem, and it is one that Musk's America Party would never solve. Whether it becomes a reality or not, it is hard to avoid one conclusion. The United States deserves better than this.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store