Who Would Replace Him?

There's lots of talk these days about Justin Trudeau resigning. Michael Harris writes:

With Trudeau having notched three electoral victories since 2015, nobody is going to push him out — at least not yet. After all, with a handsome face and a famous name, he took the Liberals from political oblivion to a majority government in 2015. But confronted with his own deepening unpopularity, will Trudeau himself step down?

That is what the summer of 2024 is all about — whether Trudeau will take a walk in the sand, as his father famously took one in the snow before resigning. Will Justin decide that for the good of the party, it’s time to make room for a new leader?

There is every reason for the PM to feel conflicted. Trudeau prides himself on his toughness. Remember how everyone thought that Sen. Patrick Brazeau would knock the stuffing out of him in their boxing match? It would be personally difficult for Trudeau to walk away from a fight with a man for whom he has so little respect, a man whose values mirror those of Stephen Harper.

There is precedent for resigning for the good of the party:

After nine years in power, for the good of that same party, all signs point to the wisdom of a Trudeau resignation sometime this year. That way, the new PM would have a chance to showcase his abilities before heading into an election in 2025.

The Liberal house is on fire, and the task at hand is to save as much of the furniture as possible. Trudeau must decide if he is the one to do that at a time when he personally trails both Poilievre and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh in the polls.

The bottom line here? Justin Trudeau is not nearly as bad as his detractors claim, often in personal and reprehensible ways. But politics is not Sunday school. Perception, not reality, governs the game. Messaging and narratives, rather than the facts, ultimately carry the day.

Once the electorate sours on a leader, as the evidence shows it has on Trudeau, all faults are amplified and all accomplishments largely ignored. We have all but reached the anybody-but-Trudeau point in national politics, thanks to a relentless personal attack on the PM that goes well beyond policy differences and politics.

Who would replace him? Dominic Leblanc's and Mark Carney's names are being bruited about. But nothing will happen until Trudeau resigns.

Image: CTV News

That's When It Gets Tough

The pundits are increasingly sceptical about Justin Trudeau. Nevertheless, Gerry Caplan writes, the public's love affair with him continues. Even columnists for The Toronto Star -- which generally supports his initiatives -- are beginning to show their cynicism:

Take a column this past weekend by the scrupulously non-partisan Susan Delacourt. Like so many of her peers, Ms. Delacourt did not at all appreciate Stephen Harper’s open contempt for the press gallery. So for most reporters, Mr. Trudeau’s openness and accessibility was a breath of fresh air. Now his shtick has turned to hot air.

Mr. Trudeau’s press conference last week, Delacourt wrote in last Saturday’s Star, “was a remarkably answer-free encounter with the parliamentary press gallery, in which one had the sense the Prime Minister was trying to prove that he could smile and speak for 20 minutes without saying anything.” She offers this warning to the PM: Voters can “take only so many platitudes and winding, wordy detours around hard truths.” Harsh stuff.

And, likewise, for Tony Burman, the bloom is coming off the rose:

Similarly, Tony Burman, former head of CBC News, ridicules Mr. Trudeau’s speech at the UN last week (to a hall two-thirds empty, it was not often enough noted). Mr. Trudeau was peddling his usual “We’re Canadian and we’re here to help” rhetoric. Mr. Burman comments acidly: “If only life were that easy.” And a Globe cartoon shows Mr. Trudeau as all sizzle, no steak.

Smiling images will only get you so far:

These scornful and disappointed observations seem to me to encapsulate much of the reaction these days to Mr. Trudeau’s endless sunny days. Nothing is as easy as Mr. Trudeau always implies, from pipelines to reconciliation with our indigenous peoples. Yet he must produce something, indeed many things, in the next few months, or he’ll be a laughingstock. But of course he risks being a laughingstock if he fails to live up to his own hype. This is a man who increases expectations every time he speaks, who can’t seem to distinguish between aspiration and reality, and he’s doing himself no favours.

 All political honeymoons come to an end. And that's when it gets tough.

Image:  cbc.ca

Not On His Father's Terms

There are those who claim that Justin Trudeau became prime minister because of his name. And, in his first months in office, I find myself comparing him -- unfavourably -- to his father. Lawrence Martin argues that, in many ways, Justin is not his father's son. And that is all for the better:

In fact, the case could well be made that Justin Trudeau is a more complex individual than his father, deeper in terms of his range of emotions and vulnerabilities, broader in terms of of his interests and relationships. The father tended to limit his reading to non-fiction. Justin, while having studied engineering as well the humanities, was a habitual reader of novels, arguing in his home that “encyclopedias could teach me facts, but only a great story could transport me into the mind of another person.

While the father who lived only in Central Canada loathed the politics of door-knocking, the son who lived on the West Coast for a period revelled in it, developing a closer relationship with and understanding of regular people. The father moved through life into his forties as a boulevardier, generally doing as he pleased, experiencing little in the way of hardship. While benefiting from the security that parental wealth brings, Justin Trudeau has had experiences far more trying.

Justin has admitted as much. Trudeau the Elder

gave him books, one of which, as Justin Trudeau wrote about in his own memoir Common Ground, was about extraordinary steps to be taken to adapt to emotional agonies. “My father’s approach, which he encouraged me to practise, had little or nothing to do with emotions. It was exclusively intellectual.” But that approach didn’t work with Justin. Preoccupying him instead was the psychological turmoil of his mother, Margaret. “My mother’s challenge was to deal with her emotions, and I became caught up in that process.”

Time will tell just what kind of prime minister Trudeau the Younger will be. But perhaps we do him a disservice if we try to measure him using his father as a rubric.


Image: www.cbc.ca

Trudeau -- Mythic Hero?

                                                   http://merlin.wikia.com/

Michael den Tandt writes that the political narrative in Canada over the next year will be all about what Justin Trudeau does. That's because -- for better of for worse -- Trudeau has assumed the mantle of the mythic hero:

Trudeau’s popularity could be linked to the very fabric of how human beings perceive political narrative. His brand has been crafted, deliberately it seems to me, to tap into very old archetypes of heroism. These archetypes are everywhere in our culture – in film, literature, myth and politics.

Joseph Campbell called it the mono-myth. It’s also been described as “the hero’s journey.” A young warrior appears, often of secretly noble parentage. He or she is called to adventure, initially refuses the call, but eventually yields to destiny, to take up the mantle and burdens of leadership. George Lucas’s character Luke Skywalker, of course, was built around this meta-story. So were the tales of the Lion King, and numerous other Hollywood fables.

Perhaps den Tandt is going a bit overboard. But he points out that:

Trudeau’s policy deficit has been presented as his greatest problem. It really isn’t. Though the lack of hard platform thus far has caused him some discomfort, the waiting does have one benefit: The Liberals will have the last word. It is safe to assume that, at some point between now and October, Trudeau will unveil a detailed plan to address income inequality and high household debt among the middle class. It is also safe to assume this plan will be framed as more egalitarian than the Conservatives’ income-splitting plan, and more realistic and responsible than the NDP’s ideas. The policy gap, in other words, will be filled.

What’s more intriguing, and potentially dicey for the Liberals, is the relentless pressure on Trudeau to live up to what I have heard jokingly described as his “Skywalker brand.” It’s actually no joke. The framing of a leader in Arthurian terms, as a good-hearted young hero, is inherently risky, because it makes it incumbent on that leader to live that part, and continue living it.

The problem with the Arthur fable was that -- in the end -- it all came crashing down. Only time will tell if Trudeau can rebuild the Round Table.

A Personality Cult?

Andrew Coyne --with some justification -- is frustrated. The Liberal Party, he writes, is preparing itself for Justin Trudeau. And, to that end, it will "transform itself into a personality cult. Anything but define itself."

I confess that I have reservations about the younger Trudeau. His support for the oil sands is a little too full throated for me. But, the oil sands aside, Coyne's knock against Trudeau is that he has no platform -- except for some vague defense of the middle class.

But let's be realistic. The way politics is played these days is different than the way it used to be played. We live in the era of the 24/7 campaign. And that means you must define your opponent before he or she defines him or herself. Unveiling a platform during a leadership race gives your opposition all kinds of time to frame you as they wish.The time for a platform is not during a leadership race. It's during an election.

There are more important questions to be answered during a leadership race. Does a candidate possess the character and temperament to be prime minister? I would argue, for instance, that Stephen Harper possesses neither. More importantly, does a candidate possess the communication skills to connect with Canadians? Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff -- for all their their academic brilliance -- did not.

And then there is the matter of experience -- which seems to be Justin's short suit. How he deals with that problem will either make him or break him.

Like Coyne, I would like to hear more ideas coming from the Liberal tent. But I don't expect to hear them until after the leadership race is over.

Radicals At The Gate

Just as Stephen Harper radically remade the Conservative Party, Michael den Tandt suggests that Justin Trudeau and his inner circle plan to rebuild the Liberal Party from the ground up:

Almost to a man and woman, the people closest to Justin Trudeau are “Greeks” (a cross between a Grit and a geek); bright, capable young people who, not many years ago, were toiling in relative anonymity at the feet of the party’s 1990s-era giants. Most are parents with young children. Like Trudeau himself, they tend in their backgrounds to hew to what is generally perceived as the party’s left wing. Some are people who’d hoped, in 2006, that Gerard Kennedy would win the leadership and revitalize the Liberal party. But they’re not talking about revitalizing any longer. They’re talking about starting over.

In 2006, Gerard Kennedy was met by indifference from the power brokers in the party's upper echelons. Their candidate was Michael Ignatieff. They failed to get their way the first time around. But they succeeded the second time; and Ignatieff -- who admitted that he was a better teacher than a politician -- quickly disappeared.

Now, almost decimated, the party's brass will not present much of a head wind to Justin's ambitions. And policy will come later:

There will be no leadership campaign policy booklet, such as the one produced by Michael Ignatieff in his 2006 leadership effort, Trudeau organizers say. Instead he will articulate his values and principles, sketching a frame within which later policy proposals will emerge. For now, the team’s main practical goal is to introduce him to people – as many as they possibly can, nationwide. “It’s less about the air war,” says [Trudeau adviser Katie]Telford. “He’s got to go out there and shake lots of hands and meet people and hear about the issues on the ground, and see how that evolves his message and his thinking.”

The Trudeau team is playing a long game -- which will be more about rebuilding a Liberal coalition, than just feeding the base. We'll have to see how that plan works out.

Engaging The Young

Today -- when Justin Trudeau formally enters the Liberal leadership race -- his mission, Lawrence Martin writes in the Globe, will be to shake up the system:

At 40, Justin Trudeau isn’t terribly young, but he has the aura of youth. As such, and given the other marketing advantages he possesses, he has the potential – slim but not out of the question – to lead the way for generational change in the exercise of political power in the country. The clock is ticking on the baby boom legions. They’ve run the show too long. Those behind them have watched in despair. They don’t vote. For the most part, they’ve stayed on the sidelines.

There was a time when 40 was considered the beginning of middle age. But we baby boomers, used to being the centre of attention, are refusing to open the corridors of power to our children. Those in power have proclaimed that Mr.Trudeau is just a kid.

It's true.that Trudeau has a lot to prove. But, Martin writes, if he can ignite a sense of idealism among the young, he will have done this country a great favour:

Idealism is the currency of the young and, if Justin Trudeau is to succeed and the Liberal Party to have new life, a new sense of it is essential. His appeal should be one of broad scope. It should be nothing less than an appeal to “change the system.”

The young are so turned off by how Ottawa operates that only a sweeping reform will suffice. Pierre Trudeau’s vision for stirring new interest in politics was “the just society.” Justin Trudeau’s should be “the new democracy” or something of that sort. It’s an appeal that cuts across party lines, regional lines and age barriers.

Mr. Harper has just told the young that they will have to work two years longer than their parents before they can retire. The job prospects they face are much bleaker than their parents' prospects at their age. And, when young Quebecers objected to a tuition increase, Mr, Charest's response was the political equivalent of telling them to go to their rooms.

However, it's worth noting that the young got their way. For better or for worse, a new government has rescinded the tuition increase. The lesson should be pretty clear: It's much better to engage the young than to go to war against them.

Justin's Time

Justin Trudeau has concluded that it's now or never. He's probably right. But we still need to know whether or not he's the right choice. Andrew Coyne writes:

We have no idea what kind of leader he would make for the Liberal party. We don’t know what his plans are to rebuild the party, or what direction he would take it, or where he would concentrate its meagre resources. We have a hint of his tenacity — winning the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match — but we don’t know whether he has what it takes generally to be a leader: whether he can build a team, inspire their loyalty, betray it when he has to. We know nothing of his strategic sense, his ability to spot a political opening, exploit an opponent’s weakness, or strike a prudent compromise.

And that is why there should be no coronation. The people who will challenge Trudeau -- and I assume there will be challengers -- need to make the Liberal leadership a real contest. After all, that is what Stephen Harper will give Justin -- a real contest.

Coyne's colleague, Micheal Den Tandt, writes that Trudeau will present Stephen Harper with a a formidable challenge:

Harper’s team has reason to fear Trudeau’s charm, his particular appeal in Quebec, Ontario and B.C., and the Liberal Party’s time-tested ability to morph into whatever policy shape best suits its needs at any given time. Where Trudeau is strongest — likability — Harper is weakest. In year seven headed for 10, time is not on the prime minister’s side in this regard. With Trudeau as his foil, it will be less easy for the PM to cast himself as the dour national bean counter, too busy with his spreadsheets to bother being human.

And, if Trudeau's leadership results in a war between the Liberals and the New Democrats, Stephen Harper will cheer from the sidelines. After Justin formally announces his candidacy this week, he must show us who he really is -- that is, he must show us not just that now is the time for his candidacy. We need to know whether or not now is the time for Trudeau.

Has Justin Got "It?"

"It" can be defined a number of ways -- intelligence, the common touch, gravitas. The main knock against Justin Trudeau is that he doesn't have what "it" takes to be Liberal leader. But Lawrence Martin writes that previous leaders -- who had "it" -- didn't fare very well:

Michael Ignatieff had intellectual heft. Sank like a stone. Stéphane Dion had policy gravitas. Sank like a stone. Paul Martin was a policy wonk. Didn’t last long in the big chair.

The Conservatives have hit pay dirt when they chose youth over experience:

For the Tories, there was Brian Mulroney. On becoming party leader in 1983, he was young, had zero experience as an elected politician, and only a glossy grasp of the issues. By contrast, Robert Stanfield, a previous leader, was a deeply conscientious issues type. Mr. Mulroney won two majorities. Bob Stanfield lost three elections in succession.

But that strategy has also failed. Joe Clark was an excellent Minister of Foreign Affairs. As prime minister, he  lasted as long as a summer dandelion. So where does that leave Justin? Perhaps what really matters, Martin writes, is a strong behind the scenes operation:

If he enters the race, [Justin] will need something the Grits haven’t had since Eddie Goldenberg and Jean Pelletier stood guard for Jean Chrétien: a first-rate management team.

 I can remember when Pierre Trudeau was an unknown quantity. Jean Marchand was supposedly the man to watch. Say what you will about them, but Keith Davey and Jim Coutts had a lot to do with the elder Trudeau's success.

Fuddle Dudde Encore

Justin Trudeau had his fuddle duddle moment yesterday. When Environment Minister Peter Kent responded to Megan Leslie's criticism of the Conservatives' performance at Durban by saying she had no right to criticize the government because she had not been there, Trudeau lost his cool.

After all, it has been long standing Canadian practice for opposition members to accompany government representatives to international conferences. But the Harper government has put an end to that practice. Elizabeth May went to Durban on her own -- and was seated as a member of the delegation from Papua-New Guinea.

To accuse Leslie of ignorance because the government had refused to let her attend the conference was dumbfoundingly hypocritical. Hence, Trudeau's response -- for which he immediately apologized. Lawrence Martin writes this morning that:

Justin chose a low-taste phrase for which he should be reproached. But we’re not exactly in an era of eloquence. Profanity is increasingly used and accepted, privately and publicly. Swear words sell.

On the one hand, what happened in question period yesterday is a sad example of how irrelevant Parliament has become. Yesterday, Gloria Galloway reported in The Globe and Mail that the Conservatives are proposing "to move more of the debate at Commons committees behind closed doors."

Someone has to call a spade a spade. Peter Kent is not a piece of excrement. But what came out of his mouth yesterday was.