C'mon, give Justin Trudeau a break.
Sure, he's overrated, but overrated-ness cuts as hard as it coddles; pricks as much as it praises. As a result, J-Tru gets not only the gushy fawning of fans (check out the comments in his Instagram feed if you want some of that, by the way) but also the exaggerated disdain of critics. Such is the curse of the undeservedly popular politician. Just ask President Obama.
In a recent piece in the National Post, Andrew Coyne compares Trudeaumania 2.0 to a "personality cult" full of zombies hailing a messiah they know only by "his name and his face." Fellow Postie George Jonas scoffs mockingly at all the brainless masses clamouring for "hereditary rule in a democracy."
Such Justin-bashing invariably concludes with some sweeping thesis explaining how this empty man's ability to milk political success from his famous family exposes a dark spot on the very soul of the Liberal Party itself.
The Grits are slouching towards the grave, so they're electing a famous name. They have no ideas, so they're electing a famous name. They're hemorrhaging demographics, so they're electing a famous name. If JT's fans see their dynastic candidate as a black screen on which to project their grandest hopes of a Liberal renaissance, his critics project a pre-existing storyline of a desperate party running on vacuous fumes.
Everyone, in short, agrees the return of Brand Trudeau has to mean something. But what if it doesn't?
A quick survey of history shows that democracies have a marked tendency to elect relatives of leaders whenever given the chance. India has been led by the daughter and grandson of its first prime minister. Argentina is currently ruled by a presidential widow. Four of the last six prime ministers of Japan have been kids or grandkids of a previous one, and the new South Korean president is the latest in Asia's long line of daughter-rulers. Closer to home, British Columbia, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island have all seen a father-son team serve as premier in the last couple of decades, and familial dynasties, notably the Mannings of Alberta and the Lewises of Ontario, have run a few party leaderships.
We can speculate why this happens so frequently, and why the George W. Bushes of the world are so easily trusted by voters despite the obvious weakness and naivete that comes from being a child of connections, but it does happen quite a bit. It's not always a sign of desperation and it's not always a harbinger of failure. It's just a thing that happens.
That the Liberal Party is the latest follower of this global fad may say something about the limited way humans of all nations and ideologies are able to imagine political leadership, but it doesn't reveal much about the party itself -- other than they're willing to try a tested gimmick that generally works.
And who's to say the others wouldn't seize similar opportunities if the potential arose? One can easily imagine an alternate universe in which the entrenched third-term government of Paul Martin inspires a charismatic, well-pedigreed Ben Mulroney to offer himself as Tory boss. We don't even have to imagine a universe in which Jack Layton's wife and son are being openly groomed for higher things.
Modern politics is myopic, and memories of precedent are exceedingly short, in part because such ignorance serves the partisan interest. When voters can't remember political history or traditions it's easy for hacks to turn routine quirks into monstrous shockers. The fact that the "Harper Government" calls itself that, for instance, or portraits of the Queen in overseas embassies. Or a politician coasting on the name of his famous father.
The Liberal Party faces no shortage of existential crises. As the displaced party of preference for left-of-centre voters, it now tries to comfort itself by conveniently imagining that ideology is useless. It still refuses to understand the difference between appealing to western Canadians and merely pandering to them, or why a successful Liberal administration like the one running B.C. (the one that produced the federal party's sole leadership candidate with provincial government experience, in fact), used to nervously clarify that it was "not affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada" in the second sentence of its online introduction. For that matter, it's not clear the party understands why it's even out of power in the first place, nor why their leadership ballot is packed with also-rans and done-nothings.
In this context, that the Liberal boss-apparent has used a famous last name to help his political career should be the least of anyone's concern. It's the easiest thing to judge, so it receives the majority of judgment, but it's useless as an explanation of what makes the Liberals a bad and troubled party in the first place -- a status which significantly predates Justin. Mocking or scolding them for embracing hereditary-rule is about as fair as judging the Tories for running attack ads or the NDP for equivocating. These are universal techniques, not particular design flaws.
Justin's bloodline is one asset in his arsenal, but he deserves to (and will) sink or swim on more than that. To tie his prime ministerial suitability to his surname exploitation, or to presume that all his strengths, handicaps, quirks, and annoyances flow from it, is to excuse a lack of deeper introspection from a party that could really use some.
Follow J.J. McCullough on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JJ_McCullough
Not Harper? Definitely.
Lay out your platform or shup!
"But because I’m not going to be putting forward a comprehensive platform over the course of this leadership. And that’s because the Liberal party has gotten far too much in the habit of generating a platform by the leader and some very smart people around them, that they then turn to Liberals across the country and say ‘now go and sell this door to door.’
This leadership is the beginning of a platform-development process, not the end of it."
But he has nothing else going for him other than his bloodline. He has done almost nothing in Parliament, other than give a few speeches, some of which included intemperate remarks he later apologized for.
His work history consists of a few years teaching at an expensive private school in Vancouver.
At 41, he still calls himself the candidate of Canada's youth - a label that is getting long in the tooth, and which acknowledges his lack of experience and achievement.
If Justin's last name were Tremblay instead of Trudeau, his candidacy would be a joke.
What we see are not democracies, but their rotting carcasses.
This is very glib, but utterly uncritical!
Think before you commit letters to screen!
you didn't mention that.
You are underestimating Canadians if you think this phenomena is just about a name. It's also about disgust with the other options, Harper and 50+1 Mulcair, leaders living in a paternalistic past.
Some commentators seem to think that Trudeau should be presenting a platform and a set of specific policies. That is the old way of doing government. Modern education supports teamwork and consensus building over an autocratic style of leadership. It tends to lead to better outcomes.
Pundits seem to expect Trudeau to spout simplistic answers to complex problems but Canadians know that there are none. Trudeau is a supporter of evidence based decision-making which I think resonates with people. Too many government decisions are based in ideology.
You call the disdain of his critics exaggerated, yet follow that with stating that his popularity is undeserved. Neither Canadians in general nor Liberals in particular are so naive as to support a politician based on his hair or who his daddy was. Those are simplistic answers.
I'm joshing because what really needs to happen to solve the complex problems that we face as Canadians is NOT POLICY FIRST.
FIRST "we the people need to define and demand a singular PURPOSE and set of PRINCIPLES of Government. Right now we don't have anything close to that. Each Party has it's own ideologies, values, missions, strategies, etc. that are not based on what Canadians want.
Until "we the people" begin to discuss what 'we' want from our politicians not much will change.
To start such discussion I will offer up the following simple, easy to understand, easy to articulate PURPOSE of Government ---
" The sole purpose and main task of politicians and bureaucrats is to serve ALL Canadians and to fight injustice. "
If you don't like this one, I'm open to hearing what others believe the Purpose of Government ought to be.
Once Purpose is nailed down, a short set of PRINCIPLES will evolve to help our elected politicians solve complex problems faced by Canadians. Only then should policies come to the table.
The various political parties have different opinions on which needs the government should address and how they should be addressed.
The transformation of democracy by technology has barely begun. People are demanding a more open participatory government. I don't think the old men understand the dramatic change that is taking place, the shift in power. A very tiny tip of the iceberg is the White House petitions program.
Trudeau was in the first McGill graduating class to use email. He's definitely not too young. We need a leader that is able to understand how technology has influenced and will continue to influence and mold the expectations of modern citizens.
I find Harper and Mulcair completely out of touch with Canadian values and what Canadians want to focus on.
Trudeau refused to be parachuted into a safe riding. Instead he took a seat away from the Bloc and has kept it. He won by pounding the pavement and connecting with people. Honesty and dedication are leadership qualities that work.
Harper has sought to give the impression that governing is a one man job. It isn't. Trudeau will lead a team of very experienced ministers and he won't be too proud to make use of their expertise. It is often said that the leader of a company creates the culture, what is and isn't acceptable within that company. Harper has generated a culture of secrecy in which power is concentrated in his hands and public servants are fearful.
We know quite a bit about Trudeau's character from his history as a private citizen and a politician. Character is more important than specific election promises. Trudeau doesn't preach transparency, he delivers it. Trudeau isn't offering simplistic solutions because there are none. Trudeau is offering a set of values, a way of looking at the world, that differs from Harper's. Those values will inform his leadership of the party and the country. That is what his supporters are drawn to.
Disclaimer: I've voted Liberal all my life. But, I see the LPC much like all parties. They come up short on PURPOSE and PRINCIPLES like all parties.
Trudeau released all of his financial information freely and openly including providing a detailed list of his speaking engagements and fees. The media did not "smoke him out".
I'd like to see Tom Mulcair do the same. Members of the NDP should ask him to.
Until your last comment I assumed you were a Harperite. Just because people don't share your politics doesn't mean that they have been duped or that they are stupid. Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP all have elected representatives who switched parties. Mulcair was a Liberal. So what if he slapped a new label on his forehead.
So let's see who is ready to walk the walk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True ! But there's more. Much more.
It's not what companies sell, it's what they stand for that makes them highly successful. Every extraordinary organization is driven by PURPOSE.
Extraordinary organizations have core ideologies that separates the visionary ones from mediocre organization. The visionary organizations have a set of core values that are unchanging
and a core purpose that fuels everything the organization does.
CORE PURPOSE ... is an organization’s fundamental reason for being. An effective purpose reflects the importance people attach to the organizations work... it taps their idealistic motivations—and gets at the deeper reasons for an organization’s existence beyond just building culture, products, services and yes....policies.
Well said, good article.