US & Canada: From Throwing Hands to Handshakes

The Gamesmanship of Narrative: Trump, Trudeau, Tariffs and Tournaments

-Josh Brusin, Founder Prxy AI

Upfront note, this was originally published on our Substack and co-written with PRXY AI models that are trained to understand, semantics, sentiment, emotion and narrative. For more information about Prxy AI and our tools, visit our website.

I. Introduction: Politics, Sport, and the Power of Narrative

Narratives shape our world. They define how we understand history, frame conflicts, and establish the boundaries between competitors and allies. In both politics and sports, narratives function as more than just representations of reality; they actively construct the meaning of events, shaping public perception and emotional investment.

Donald Trump, more than any contemporary political figure, has mastered narrative construction through conflict building political and ideological rivalries into spectacles that demand attention, escalate emotion, and sustain long-term engagement. This framework of conflict-as-narrative was on full display in the recent 4 Nations Face-Off championship between the U.S. and Canada, where geopolitical tensions were mirrored, and perhaps amplified, through an intensely physical and politically charged hockey match.

Trump’s ability to inject tension into an existing rivalry and heighten the stakes follows a well-documented pattern in political and literary narrative structures. But if he was watching, he hopefully stayed for the handshake at the end. Because what unfolded on the ice wasn’t just an exercise in competition, it was a case study in narrative resolution, a concept often absent from Trump’s own approach to power and conflict.

This article will analyze the 4 Nations Face-Off as an analog of U.S.-Canada relations, applying theories from narrative identity (McAdams, 1993), competitive storytelling (Bruner, 1986), and political dramaturgy (Edelman, 1988) to examine the parallels between sporting rivalries and diplomatic tensions. Ultimately, we will argue that while Trump’s method of conflict-driven narrative building was a successful tool in heightening engagement, he may have missed the most important narrative pivot: resolution and renewal.

II. Narrative Structures in Politics and Sport: A Theoretical Framework

Narrative theorists, from Aristotle’s Poetics to modern structuralists like Todorov (1969), have long argued that effective storytelling follows a recognizable arc, beginning with equilibrium, escalating through conflict, and ultimately concluding with some form of resolution. This structure is not only applicable to literature and film but also to political discourse (Edelman, 1988) and competitive sports (Huizinga, 1938), where games function as structured narratives that engage audiences through emotional and ideological stakes.

We can break down the 4 Nations Face-Off through the typical classical narrative structure:

1. Exposition: The pre-existing U.S.-Canada rivalry is well-known, both in sport and politics. But leading up to this game, Trump introduced new political tensions, increasing the stakes of the match through economic threats and nationalistic rhetoric.

2. Rising Action: The game itself became brutal, aggressive, and emotionally charged. Anthem boos, fights, and heightened intensity reflected not just hockey’s inherent physicality but the geopolitical animosities layered on top of the sport.

3. Climax: Canada’s overtime victory served as the narrative peak- an unpredictable and dramatic turning point that left emotions raw.

4. Falling Action & Resolution: Despite the high tensions, the players shook hands, demonstrating that, in sport, even the most intense battles conclude with an acknowledgment of mutual respect.

This resolution phase is where sport and politics tend to diverge and where Trump’s personal approach to narrative creation stands in contrast to traditional storytelling structures.

III. The Narrative of Conflict: Trump’s Political Playbook

Donald Trump’s rhetorical style and political strategy can be understood through the framework of conflict-driven narrative construction (Bruner, 1991; Lakoff, 2004). His method relies on:

Binary Oppositions: A common narrative device where the world is divided into stark us vs. them categories (Barthes, 1972). Trump’s political rhetoric mirrors this structure, turning international relationships into competitive, zero-sum conflicts.

Antagonistic Engagement: Trump’s engagement with Canada’s leadership, particularly Prime Minister Trudeau, follows the classic antagonist-protagonist dynamic (Propp, 1928), where Trudeau is framed as a weaker or adversarial figure whom Trump must defeat in negotiations or rhetoric.

Escalation as Strategy: His approach to governance and media relies on heightening stakes (Derrida, 1997), never allowing conflicts to settle into resolution, a hallmark of high-engagement narrative storytelling.

By applying these narrative techniques to the 4 Nations Face-Off, Trump successfully transformed a routine sporting event into a symbolic battle for national pride, making it more engaging, more emotional, and more politically relevant.

However, narratives built entirely on conflict must eventually confront their need for resolution, a phase Trump frequently avoids.

IV. The Handshake as Narrative Resolution: A Diplomatic Preview?

Unlike political discourse, where conflicts may extend indefinitely, sport is structured to resolve itself (Huizinga, 1938). The post-game handshake in hockey functions as a narrative device of closure and continuity, signaling that while competition is fierce, respect and sportsmanship remain foundational values.

From a narrative identity perspective (McAdams, 1993), this handshake serves as a reconciliation of competing identities, an acknowledgment that both sides exist in a shared system that must persist beyond a single conflict. This is precisely the narrative phase Trump often ignores.

Sporting Ritual as Diplomatic Metaphor

Hockey games end, but rivalry continues. Similarly, U.S.-Canada relations will always feature economic, political, and ideological competition, but permanent enmity is unsustainable.

The handshake is a commitment to the future. Just as hockey players will meet again in future competitions, nations must engage in ongoing diplomacy rather than indefinite conflict.

In Trump’s political theater, resolution is often deferred indefinitely. But in sport, closure is mandatory and therein lies the lesson that Trump, the master of competitive narrative, may have missed.

V. Conclusion: The Limits of Conflict as Narrative

By all measures of narrative engagement, Trump’s intervention in the 4 Nations Face-Off was highly effective. He turned a well-established rivalry into a spectacle that captivated audiences beyond the usual sports fanbase.

However, conflict-driven narratives cannot sustain themselves without resolution. The post-game handshake represents a narrative closure that Trump often resists, but which remains essential for long-term diplomatic stability.

For Trump, the challenge is not in crafting compelling rivalries, he excels at that. The challenge lies in recognizing that every good story, no matter how heated the conflict, requires an ending that allows the game to be played again.

If Trump was watching to the end, he would have seen that even the most ferocious competitors ultimately shake hands. And in both hockey and diplomacy, that handshake is what allows the story to continue.

References and great extra credit reading on the power of narrative:

*Aristotle. Poetics.

*Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies.

*Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality.

*Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology.

*Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle.

*Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture.

*Lakoff, G. (2004). Dona€?t Think of an Elephant!

*McAdams, D. (1993). The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self.

*Propp, V. (1928). Morphology of the Folktale.

*Todorov, T. (1969). Grammaire du Decameron.