Colby Cosh: Based on Hoekstra’s definition, I’m a foreign election-interferer

Do you suppose I’m guilty of intervening in a foreign election? I would never have thought so, but earlier this week the American ambassador to Canada went on a Canadian podcast to warn against Canadian “interference” in U.S. midterm elections. The example that got up Pete Hoekstra’s nose furthest was apparently the Ontario government’s October 2025 Ronald Reagan-themed television ad, which ran for two weeks on the four “major” U.S. broadcast networks and ESPN’s postseason baseball coverage.

Sign In or Create an Account

The ad was nothing more than a (harmlessly edited) 1987 quotation from a radio editorial delivered by President Reagan. Viewers were made emphatically aware that the spot was paid for by Ontario. It accurately expressed Reagan’s core beliefs, in Reagan’s own voice, about the virtue and importance of international free trade. If the ad had quoted almost any other historic statesman, listeners would be safe in assuming that it had been written by someone else, possibly for ephemeral reasons of partisan advantage. But this is Reagan, and that wasn’t his style: his creation and use of radio editorials are practically their own field of historical (and poli-sci) study.

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

In other words, Ontario made a revered American statesman speak from the grave, with undoubted sincerity, on an urgent contemporary issue. Canadians are, apparently, supposed to feel bad about this: it might be “foreign election interference.” This simply reminded me that talk of “foreign election interference” annoys the living hell out of me. It’s a category that some social scientist or historian will figure out how to break into usable components, into well-defined words conducive to the underlying problem. For now, it’s used for name-calling and race-baiting as often as for any other purpose.

The phrase “election interference,” at one extreme, includes violence, kidnapping and criminal intimidation by foreign agents. (In this manifestation, it’s a problem that Canada has a lot more of than the United States, but it’s merely one aspect of a wider “the state won’t solve, address or even just oppose crime” problem.) It can include political corruption and foreign compromise of officials and legislators. But at the other end of the spectrum, “interference” might and does include lots of open, fair, ethical, democratic persuasive activity like the Reagan ad. It seems to me this kind of thing ought to be welcomed among sovereign states as a healthy alternative to espionage, corruption and media conspiracy.

Did Ontario create the ad intending to shift American votes and political sentiment? Of course. Is there anything reasonable for an American to object to about the ad, given its explicit and friendly foreign provenance? I’m damned if I can see it. It is for Americans to judge whether to be convinced by purely persuasive appeals from legitimate foreign interests that declare themselves as such. In the case of the Reagan ad, no Canadian person is heard from or quoted at all. The damn thing is practically an “American Heritage Minute” paid for by Canadians. Me, I was never happier to see a government dollar spent.

Anyway, it occurred to me that I may be a nasty foreign interferer. I’ve written many columns about the Trump administration’s practice of protectionist economic policy. They don’t always include a giant banner reading “AMERICANS ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE TRADE POLICY FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY,” but I will never write a word on the subject without having this in mind. I don’t, however, attack President Donald Trump’s jazz-improv tariffs from a Canadian point of view, or in explicit defence of Canadian interests. Mostly I am trying to contrast current American policy with the text and spirit of the American Constitution, as a knowledgeable and admiring foreigner.

I do this (in the NATIONAL Post) in order to inform Canadians, who are 99 per cent of my audience, and to make better forecasts about America. But am I aware of having a small American following when I write this stuff? Do I harbor flickers of hope for influencing Americans in favour of the great classical-liberal cause of free trade? Reader, I confess my crime. I am a foreign election-interferer, casting his laughable iota of weight into the maelstrom of American democracy. Let the drone strike come though the heavens fall.

Get more Colby Cosh, subscribe to the NP Platformed newsletter.

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.