We know that history repeats, if not exactly. As Hitler invaded Austria, and as Putin invaded Ukraine, is Canada in danger of an American invasion? Has Canada been getting a free ride at U.S. expense, as Mr. Trump accuses? How independent can we be? Now we scramble in the face of a bully’s threats.

I was fortunate to immigrate to Canada in the elder Trudeau era, when the border guards were literally looking the other way. In fact, I “landed” in Quebec City, about as far away as I could get from ubiquitous American culture. At the time, the perceived threat there was from “les Anglais.” I knew better even then.

I write this on the 60th anniversary of the modern Canadian flag. Having grown up compulsorily saluting the Stars and Stripes every schoolday morning and public event, I now believe national flags should fly over federal buildings, not on domestic doorsteps and at used car lots. I was happy to find that Canadian flag-waving seemed to be confined to hockey victories. The very lack of national self-consciousness still seems a charming relief. I still don’t know all the words to “Oh, Canada.” After all, “Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pay, c’est l’hiver!”

All this laxness and diffidence may have a price. Canadian “socialism” and other quirkiness was tolerated under the American economic and military umbrella. That tolerance depended on a degree of liberalness and respect for differences in the U.S., which can no longer be taken for granted. Can Canada’s friendlier, politer, and more relaxed ethos can scarcely compete with current Yankee intensiveness? Can we preserve a relaxed domestic calm while threatened from below? In game-theory terms, the optimal strategy to deal with bullies is “Tit For Tat”—do unto others as they do to you—at least when bargaining from a position of relative strength, in recurring interchanges. The cautionary note, however, is not to antagonize the bully when you are not in a position of strength. Bravado can backfire.

So, while keeping calm and clear head, we ought also to get stronger and less dependent on the U.S. On one level, that means strengthening our military: not only against China or Russia, but against the U.S. itself, which has ten times our population, wealth, and military strength. The U.S. would not fail to defend itself by “defending” Canada—that is, by occupying it. So, think Ukraine, and the type of military technology that midgets can use against goliaths. Secondly, Canada can cultivate other alliances and trade partners. It could join the European Union. Still in transition from being a resource-based economy, we can strive to be more self-sufficient, less dependent on trade at all.

Perhaps the harder challenge is to keep our identity by not rising to the bait of the aggressor, sinking to their level. Women have faced this ancient problem for millennia. Ethnic groups and small countries have faced it in the shadow of empires. Democrats and liberals now face it south of the border. How can quiet reason prevail over aggressive ranting? Well, two ways: by remaining unrattled within; and by remaining steadfastly united without. We may have to become more nationally self-conscious of “Canadian” values, in order to stubbornly preserve them. To the degree that being Canadian intentionally resists a precise definition, that may seem paradoxical. Yet, however nondescript and un-American Canada may seem to the current U.S. administration, we can know those qualities to be the very strengths worth standing for and defending. In its modest way, Canada can continue to endorse genteel and humanitarian values at a time when the triumph of global capitalism entails a world-wide political shift to the right.