In 1957, newly elected prime minister John Diefenbaker returned from a meeting of Commonwealth heads of government and announced that in order to strengthen Commonwealth trade ties, he wanted to shift...

In 1957, newly elected prime minister John Diefenbaker returned from a meeting of Commonwealth heads of government and announced that in order to strengthen Commonwealth trade ties, he wanted to shift 15 percent of Canadian trade away from the United States to Britain. Analyses by his civil service indicated that in order to reach this goal, Britain would have to buy twice as many Canadian exports as they were purchasing at the time, and likewise, British exports to Canada would have to double. Critics pointed out that Canadian consumers would suffer, not only by paying more for some goods, but also because the range and quality of goods available would become more limited.

Would British cars be able to start on cold winter mornings, for example?*

Diefenbaker’s desire to shift trade in response to a political goal (closer ties with the Commonwealth) reflects a mercantilist orientation. What are some of the arguments in support of that position? Economic liberals, by contrast, would argue that trade does not (easily) respond to political imperatives and has negative consequences both for consumers and overall growth. What might critical theorists say about Diefenbaker’s plan?