I'd like to make it clear at the start of this post that I have by no means been converted to the belief that Justin Trudeau would be an appropriate choice to lead the country, for reasons that I will conclude the post with. However, I simply want to make a few observations about the striking contrast he presents to Stephen Harper.
By now, everyone that follows such things is likely aware of the stark and tight control Harper tries to extend over his entire regime. Parliamentary secretaries, M.P.s and others who speak publicly on the government's behalf are given very strict speaking points from which they cannot deviate. A recent Power and Politics panel on Trudeau's admissions about pot-smoking vividly attested to that fact whenever Conservative M.P. Blake Richards spoke, as do numerous past public discussions on other matters. Journalists, as we were reminded the other day, are limited to five questions of the Prime Minister on those rare occasions when he deigns to allow them access to him. Any attempt at deviation from that regimen is met with severe consequences, as was evident to the world when Chinese reporter Li Xuejiang was roughed up and ejected by Harper's staff and the RCMP when he tried to ask a question:
Everything about Harper bespeaks an overweening control of the message, disdain for the truth, and contempt for the electorate.
Trudeau, by contrast, projects the image of an honest and transparent politician. In today's Toronto Star, columnist Tim Harper makes some interesting observations about the nature of what he sees as Trudeau's strategy:
Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.
They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.
He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate [emphasis mine] for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.
Tim Harper characterizes Trudeau as a risk-taker:
He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.
He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour...
Harper then turns his attention to Trudeau's recent admission, saying it is hardly news that someone has smoked a bit of of pot over the years. He says the real risk for him is the unsolicited details he provided:
Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.
In a country tired of the mean-spirited, controlling and spiteful nature of its Prime Minister, this is likely a refreshing change. But columnist Harper makes a crucial observation toward the end of his piece which addresses the same deep reservations I have about Trudeau's leadership capacities.
But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.
It is all well and good to project an image of openness and honesty, but without any articulation of policy, Trudeau runs the real risk of reinforcing the other image he has as a political and intellectual lightweight, something that even a country desperate for change will not and cannot support.
Trudeau still has much to prove, Lorne. But he's already proved that he's no Stephen Harper.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know you mean that in the best possible way, Owen.
DeleteI'm always reminded of how Barack Obama's charm and liberal ornamentation appealed to a nation weary of Bush and Co. Turns out, they weren't so very different. It's very possible Mr. Trudeau will win journalists' - and thereby Canadians' - hearts and minds, only to double-down on policies and approaches we usually associate with Harper.
ReplyDelete(By the same token, I'm always annoyed by posts and articles that make fun of Harper's physical appearance, as though global warming would be less harmful if only the PM looked more heroic or something.)
Your points are well-taken, Wendell. Like you, I came to see that the real difference between Bush and Obama was one of style, not substance. And I suspect that is likely what separates Trudeau and Harper, given that the former is for the pipeline, tarsands extraction, and sales of national companies to China.
DeleteYour second point is also a very good one, in my view. There are far too many real issues upon which to take Harper to task; ad hominem attacks are totally unnecessary.
I think there are two sides to Trudeau. There's the free spirit side he shows the public but there's another side, one we don't see, that does mind his handlers. I have the feeling that Trudeau's policy, if we ever see it, will be prescribed by others.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, Mound, then I suspect we will see little that deviates from the status quo. For those of a certain age, I guess we could say it will be "Same Bat Channel" just a "New Bat Costume."
DeleteAnd, as for Wendell's displeasure over cracks about Harper's appearance, can you think of a more time-honoured Canadian tradition? We've been making caricatures out of our leaders since John A. Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, Trudeau, Laurier, Chretien - the lot of them. No one's picking on Harper. He's a stiff, that's the way it is.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one could make something of a distinction here from the past, Mound; it's true that the people you mentioned were always considered fair game to editorial cartoonists, etc., but in the more freewheeling Internet, without editorial constraints, anything can be said or done. For example, in my view, attacks on the sexual orientation of harper cabinet ministers or the true state of Harper's marriage are ad hominem unless hypocrisy on the part of the individuals were involved. If the Harper government were following an anti-gay agenda, then such information would be of relevance; otherwise, it really does not constitute fair commentary. things about Harper's hair, however, if done right, are just funny, not malicious.
DeleteActually, as I remember, Trudeau had claimed that the only difference between his future government and Harper's is only one of tone. It of course raised the question whether there would be any differences in substance. In other words, he could be suggesting, Liberal, Tory same old story ... but delivered in softer, more respectful tones.
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed too that that he failed to make any statement against Harper's most current prorogation, as Tom Mulcair did. Instead he announced the arrival of the newest member of his family, which while good, is clearly less important as the prorogation of Parliament seemingly to escape accountability again.
I completely agree, Anon. Style is fine, but real substance, I hope, is what the people are looking for.
DeleteI do like Harper's new 'doo. Makes him look more distinguished. Is this a new rug? Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, Anon, I don't think he will be in the mood to share those secrets with us in the foreseeable future.
Delete