Michael Taube: I'm a speechwriter. Carney did better than Trudeau at Davos. But that's a low bar

He leaned heavily on rhetoric and platitudes

By Michael Taube

Published Jan 22, 2026

Last updated 1 day ago

4 minute read

Re-printed without permission

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Jan. 20 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland received significant media attention. It was critical of U.S. President Donald Trump’s political agenda without directly saying so. Canada’s progressive commentators, and some conservative commentators, couldn’t contain their enthusiasm when the PM uttered lines like, “we know the old order is not coming back … we shouldn’t mourn it” and “we shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together.”

Carney’s speech was described as “powerful,” “remarkable,” “incredible,” “intelligent” and a “tour de force.” One political strategist suggested he had “hit a massive, consequential and needed home run” at Davos. A former Premier wrote the PM had “delivered the most important speech any Canadian Prime Minister has given in decades.”

I couldn’t disagree more.

I’ve worked as a speechwriter for former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and I’ve written speeches for politicians, business leaders and private citizens. It’s a discipline that I understand very well, and a craft that I take quite seriously.

Carney’s speech was fine. It was better than anything his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, could have presented, but that’s a low bar to begin with. It wasn’t a history-making moment, and it’s ridiculous to suggest it should be considered as one of the most important speeches a Canadian Prime Minister has ever given..

The Post’s Terry Newman recently made an astute observation, “I’m seeing lots of feelings about the speech, but no analysis as to how it pertains to reality.” That’s basically what I felt. There was much rhetoric, and plenty of platitudes, but very little was said when it came to a realistic vision of Canada, the U.S. and our world.

I’m not suggesting everything in Carney’s speech was nonsense. He accurately paraphrased Vaclav Havel’s The Power of the Powerless, including the shopkeeper living in a Communist country who “places a sign in his window: ‘Workers of the world unite’. He doesn’t believe it, no-one does, but he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along.” I don’t disagree with this line in principle, “a world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.” His position about middle powers like Canada is also valid. To wit, “great powers can afford for now to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.”

Do you notice anything unusual about those sentences, however? They’re all rhetorical in nature, just like the vast majority of Carney’s speech. Yes, rhetoric is an important tool in a speechwriter’s toolbox. It’s a means of creating memorable lines, thoughts and concepts that audiences can take away. An abundance or overemphasis of rhetoric, which Carney utilized in spades, means there’s little of real value, importance or consequence.

Carney’s goal was obvious. Get under Trump’s skin as deeply as he can, and do it with an audience that dislikes what the President is doing. This explains less-than-subtle references to a “rupture in the world order,” “an era of great power rivalry,” “the gaps between rhetoric and reality,” “the powerful have their power” and “American hegemony.” It’s clear who this was primarily intended for at Davos.

.

Carney also knows he can get a majority government by continuing to attack Trump in his speeches. The PM won last year’s federal election because the conversation largely shifted to Trump and tariffs. The fact that some Liberals actually think their policies and election strategies had greater impact than the all-consuming tariff battle is laughable, since they had almost none. No Canadian party or leader was able to make any significant inroads, either. Canadians foolishly believed Carney was our country’s best chance to tame Trump’s agenda and they voted for him.

Hasn’t worked out, has it?

The PM also knows he has a captive audience in Canada. Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t a myth, it’s real. People can’t handle the fact the president has won two elections and marches to the beat of his own drum. They also can’t handle the fact that Trump has been able to masterfully manipulate political opponents, nominal allies, the media and other critics by twisting a few words, sentences and clauses to his advantage. And when they say they know this already, they fall for it time and time again.

Greenland is a perfect example. Some people genuinely thought he was going to order the U.S. military to invade the semi-autonomous territory. There was no proof of this. He said “no comment” on several occasions, which brought out people’s worst fears and instincts. Guess what? Trump confirmed at Davos that he’s not going to do it. Also, guess what? He was never going to do it, as I and others pointed out!

Look, I also don’t care for some of Trump’s ideas, policies and tactics. But I don’t fall to pieces every time he says something I don’t like — and believe the worst case scenario is about to materialize. Start thinking more rationally about all things Trump.

The one thing I’ll give Carney credit for? His intelligence. He knows his Canadian supporters will be persuaded by his rhetoric as hard as they’ve fallen for Trump’s rhetoric.

National Post