Multilateralism, a rules-based international order, free trade, all laced with the usual “the world needs more Canada” self-congratulation and moral preening.
In that specific paragraph, Coyne left out the Liberal's adoption of hard power. Which does represent a profound departure from traditional Canadian liberalism. Later in the article Coyne mentions how the references to force would sound like comment sense to most Canadians. That may be true, but I'm convinced most of progressives and liberals have not fully embraced the Liberal's pivot. My impression is that the Liberal's base and the rest of Canadians are lagging behind and acting slightly bewildered from the Liberal's pivot. "What, we believe in hard power and lethal force now? Ugh, okay I guess."
The containment phase has begun.
And I think Americans would love nothing more than to be the isolationist nation that it was designed to be. Call me crazy all you want, but the founding founders would find Donald "American First" Trump far more appealing than Clinton's (or Obama's) strong inclination to maintain and embrace international alliances.
His legislative agenda, such as it is, stalled; hundreds of senior offices unfilled; cabinet officers directly contradicting his own statements; multiple investigations into his associates’ dealings with the Putin regime, and his efforts to suppress those investigations, closing in; and most seriously of all, a plummeting popular approval rating, to levels never seen so early in a presidency: the signs of Trump’s growing weakness are everywhere.
Again, notwithstanding Trump's incompetent leadership and probably corruption, this is what the founding fathers envisioned: a weakening state with a weak presidency. The founding fathers would never tolerate someone with Trump's temperament, but the consequence of a Trump presidency (a weak executive branch with an strong House and Senate) is exactly what the founders wanted.
Still, there is no doubting the change of tone, if not direction. For the time being, at least, the world is prepared to get along without America.
And a plurality of Americans would have it no other way. In all seriousness, the substance of the article is right. It is radical in the sense that it's a significant pivot from the status-quo. Under normal circumstance Liberals would never use 'hard power' rhetoric.