Who’s talking
2 speakersTranscript
36 turns · 22 minUm, you can have all these checks and balances, uh, but it depends to some extent on people agreeing to play by the rules. And it, it depends on the president, uh, ob- uh, observing some kind of norm, including, uh, putting his hands up and saying, "You got me" when he's caught. And even more so, it depends upon the, uh, people in the other branches of government, um, doing their job of holding the, the president, in this case, to account.
[instrumental music] Welcome to the Munk Dialogues with Andrew Coyne for the 3rd of July, 2026. I'm Rudyard Griffiths, chair of the Munk Debates. Andrew, great to be in conversation with you again.
Happy to be with you.
Talking about, uh, big events, we've just gone through Canada Day. Um, somewhat maybe subdued. Hot one, definitely. Sweltering. I wanna focus, though, on the United States and July 4th, 'cause it's a more significant, um, event in, in the kind of civic calendar. 250 years of the US Republic. So let's begin in broad strokes, Andrew. What does this anniversary for you commemorate? What does it say maybe about, you know, the broader themes of America's kind of endurance as one of the most fascinating, relevant, impactful countries that we've known, um, even before the modern era?
Well, it's fascinating that it commemorates, uh, not the founding of the country as a constitutional republic, uh, but the Declaration of Independence. Um, uh, in fact, it's, it's, it's only the, the date of the passage of the final text of the de- in- independence. The actual declaration came two days earlier, but never mind. Uh, so that tells you something. It tells you that America, about two things about America. One is that it was founded on certain ideals, uh, well represented in the, in the Declaration of Independence, and that has remained the case. If you scratch an American, uh, and you ask them what's, you know, "What is it that makes an American?" They will talk about things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, America's mission in the world, these kinds of things. And that's, in some ways, a very attractive character. It's a very idealistic form of nationalism. Um, but idealism can also mean extremism, uh, if it's not tempered by realism and pragmatism. And there's an extremist streak that runs through Americans as well, and that's again connected with their founding in that, uh, it, it was a revolution. It was an abrupt rupture, and a violent one. Uh, and contrast that with Canada. Our national day commemorates the going into effect of legislation passed by the Imperial Parliament creating the constitutional structure of Canada. Um, we, we didn't have a revolution. We had a series of staging posts along the way to, uh, full sovereignty. You know, the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the, the Constitution, Second Constitution in 1982. So the difference between the countries, I know it's a, maybe a bit cliché, but there's, in this case, it's true. Uh, that is very much part of our, of our national characters in both countries. Uh, America is more idealistic than us, is more, uh, adherent to principle than us, but can also get really caught up in massive doctrinal disputes
Episode notes
What would America's Founding Fathers make of the state of U.S. politics as the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its independence? The constitutional rules they established to guide the republic and safeguard it against monarchical or dictatorial rule are being tested by President Trump, whose conduct has exposed potential weaknesses in the system. Andrew argues that America's checks and balances ultimately depend on everyone—from all three branches of government, and especially the commander-in-chief—respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Twenty-five years from now, will America still be the democratic republic we know today?
In the second half of the show, Rudyard and Andrew examine the Canadian government's announcement that it will build a new, government-funded 1,000-kilometre oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia. The decision to press ahead despite the environmental concerns that have long plagued similar projects underscores just how politically important this pipeline has become—for both Western Canada and Ottawa. Should Canadians be concerned that it will be built by a federal Crown corporation? And how can the government hope to keep costs under control when the proposed route appears so technically complex?
Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and