Every so often, a thinker comes along who challenges how we see the world. For me, Peter Zeihan is one of those people. Whether one agrees with him or not, he forces us to confront the structural realities beneath our assumptions: demographics, geography, energy, and the post–Second World War global order. His analysis is stark, unsettling, and often persuasive — not because of ideology, but because of the cold logic of physical and demographic facts.
At the same time, another Canadian voice stands on the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum: Mark Carney. Carney represents the institutionalist tradition — thoughtful, cooperative, rules-based, and anchored in an optimistic belief that good policy, strong institutions, and international collaboration can prevent the fractures Zeihan warns about.
Their worldviews could not be more different. But together, they frame the uncertainty that defines our era.
The United States: Retreat or Renewal?
In Zeihan’s view, the United States is not declining — it is withdrawing. For decades, the U.S. Navy guaranteed global trade routes, allowing almost every country on earth to import energy, food, and components safely. This system was the backbone of globalization.
Zeihan argues that Americans no longer see value in this role. Trump did not cause the retreat — he simply made it obvious. Biden, in Zeihan’s view, has largely continued the same trajectory in quieter form. The U.S. is turning inward, relying on its unmatched geography, young(ish) demographics, and energy independence. According to Zeihan, America may prove stronger in a world where supply chains fragment.
Carney, by contrast, sees U.S. leadership as indispensable. He believes global stability depends on American engagement, multilateral institutions, and cooperative frameworks that align democratic nations. For Carney, the dangers of retreat — economic fragmentation, weaker alliances, and rising authoritarian influence — are far more severe than the risks of staying engaged.
But Carney is not blind to those risks. Maintaining global commitments comes with real costs: financial exposure to global crises; military and strategic responsibilities that are expensive and politically difficult; domestic backlash from citizens who feel globalization has left them behind; dependence on unreliable partners; and the sheer fiscal and political cost of global leadership. Yet Carney argues that the alternative — retreat — leaves democracies vulnerable, markets unstable, and authoritarian powers emboldened. His message is simple: pay the price of leadership today, or pay a much higher price for disorder tomorrow.
These are two very different interpretations of the same country’s future.
Trump’s Role: Catalyst or Cause?
Zeihan views Donald Trump not as the architect of a new era, but as the accelerator of one already underway. Trump challenged alliances, imposed tariffs broadly (including on allies), confronted China, and made transactional diplomacy the norm. Zeihan agrees with Trump on one point: the United States would eventually have to reconsider its role as global guarantor. But he argues Trump’s execution was chaotic, solitary, and unnecessarily antagonistic.
Carney would say something different. His worldview emphasizes cooperation, predictability, and the stability of rules-based systems. Trump’s approach — erratic, improvisational, and distrustful of institutions — is almost the mirror opposite of Carney’s model. Carney believes in rebuilding globalization, not abandoning it.
Where Zeihan sees the collapse of the old order as inevitable, Carney sees a world desperate for renewal.
Canada Between Two Visions
Canada sits in a particularly interesting place between these worldviews.
Zeihan’s Canada is a nation with enviable resources; closely aligned with a self-sufficient United States; dependent on trade but capable of thriving in a regionalized North American system; and strong demographically only because of immigration. It is a country that must decide whether it wants deeper integration with the U.S. in a deglobalizing world. Zeihan’s Canada is pragmatic, resilient, and capable — if it chooses to act strategically.
Carney’s Canada is a champion of open markets, strong institutions, climate-conscious investment, international cooperation, and financial stability. Carney believes Canada succeeds when it leans into global leadership, not when it retreats into regional spheres. Carney’s Canada is outward-looking, globally connected, and deeply invested in maintaining an open, rules-based international system.
Both visions contain truths; both reveal vulnerabilities. The challenge is knowing which future is unfolding.
Carney vs. Zeihan: Competing Narratives of the Next 20 Years
Mark Carney: Globalization must be reformed and strengthened; U.S. leadership is essential; institutions are critical for prosperity; China is manageable through cooperation; climate is a central long-term economic issue; and Canada’s best path is deeper global engagement.
Peter Zeihan: Globalization is already collapsing; the U.S. is withdrawing permanently; institutions are weak against geography and demographics; China is demographically doomed and economically fragile; climate is secondary to structural decline; and Canada’s future lies in tighter integration with the United States.
Carney represents intentional stewardship.
Zeihan represents structural inevitability.
One speaks of the world we can still shape; the other of the world that is coming whether we like it or not.
Which One Is Right?
I find myself wanting Carney to be right. His worldview is constructive, principled, humane, and grounded in the belief that smart policy and international cooperation can prevent chaos. He is exceptionally smart, experienced, and respected — arguably the most credible Canadian voice in global economic governance.
But I cannot ignore Zeihan’s warnings. His arguments about shifting demographics, stressed supply chains, and geopolitical withdrawal are difficult to dismiss. If he is even half right, the next decade will test assumptions we have held for 80 years.
The truth is, no one knows which path the world will take. History is neither linear nor predictable. But what both thinkers offer — from opposite directions — is a clearer sense of the stakes.
Carney gives us a roadmap.
Zeihan gives us a caution sign.
Canada, situated between these visions, must decide whether it will lean into global leadership, as Carney urges, or adapt to a fragmented world, as Zeihan foresees.
Perhaps the wise path forward is to listen to both.