The Trudeau Trap
Here is the generally accepted wisdom coming from the media and the chattering classes in the past couple of days - Harper has got a year at least, maybe two, to govern, because the Liberals won't want to pull the plug until they have a new leader, and they're going to take their time picking one. They want to rebuild. They want to get it right. They will wait. And Harper has some room to manoeuvre.
I admit, that was my initial reaction. It is almost certainly what's going to happen - when, after all, are the media and the chattering classes ever wrong?
But...
It could be a trap.
If I was Paul Martin, it would be a trap.
Stick with me here for a bit...
First, remember this - Paul Martin fought long, hard, and dirty, for years, to become Liberal leader / Prime Minister. Is this really something that he would give up, so easily, so quickly, as he did on election night, particularly when his party rebounded at the end of the campaign and did better than most people (myself included) expected?
Yes, maybe he really is tired of it all. And he is 67, although 70 seems to be the new 60, so I don't think that his age is really an issue (think of Francois Mitterand, or Ronald Reagan, or John McCain, the man who might be the next American president). But if that's the case, why stick around at all - to sit as a backbencher, a 21st century Diefenbaker? I don't think so. He's got a lot of money, and time, and better things to do.
Besides, here's the thing - he didn't look tired at the end of the campaign. He did at the beginning, which was part of the problem, but he came on strong at the end - too strong, according to many, with his over-the-top fear-mongering, but nobody could argue that he wasn't showing a great deal of energy at the end.
In fact, he looked a lot like a guy who had caught his second wind, who knew that, despite all of the scandals and all of the blunders, things had a chance of turning out better than people thought. The Party was going to survive - and, if he played his cards right, Paul Martin was going to survive.
So why quit?
Well, if I was Martin, I would quit in order to avoid the inevitable back-stabbing that would have happened had he stayed. No-one speaks ill of a departed leader. Indeed, the praise is already starting to come out from almost all corners - grudging at times, but certainly not the hammering he would be taking if he had stayed at the helm. Instead, his advisers are the guys taking the hits. Why not? They're loyalists to the core. At least some of them would gladly sacrifice themselves for the greater good, i.e. Paul Martin, because they still believe in the man.
They believe their guy was robbed. "Yes," they say, "we made some mistakes, but this is all Jean Chretien's fault. He ran the corrupt government. He was the tired old hack who just wanted the power. Our guy was a leader, a visionary, an honest man who tried to clean-up the mess, and took the hit for it. Our guy did all the heavy lifting, and Chretien took the credit. Chretien left us with no room to govern, no time to make our mark. It's all his fault!"
The truth is that there is more than a fair bit of merit in these claims. If Chretien had left a more stable regime behind, without the sponsorship scandal, I think there's a pretty good chance that Martin would be approaching the third year of his first majority government, and Stephen Harper would be criticizing him from the opposition benches, probably not as leader of the Tories.
Furthermore, consider this - Martin has always looked better when he didn't actually hold the top job. He worked best when his goal was to gain power, not hang onto it. In short, he thrived as the guy coming up from behind, and not as the front-runner.
Finally, don't forget - many of the MPs who remain in the Liberal caucus were Martinites. Many of them were shocked to see him step down so quickly.
Just like I was.
So, maybe, just maybe, this is part of a bigger plan, hatched in the dying days of the campaign. A plan to lay the groundwork for a quick Martin restoration.
It's a plan that goes something like this...
First, step up the attacks on the Tories and Harper. It won't win us the election, but it will scare enough voters to stick with the Liberals, and not vote Tory or NDP, so that we can maintain the Party as more than just a credible opposition - we'll be a government-in-exile. It will also allow us to say "we warned you" later, when they blow it.
Then we spin the results as if we actually exceeded expectations (by the time it ends, how many people will really remember how far we were ahead when the campaign started - thank God for long campaigns).
Get Martin out of the public eye for a bit. Have his advisers admit they let the boss down. Let people's impressions of him as a do-nothing, scandal-ridden Prime Minister recede, and let's focus on the "real Martin" - the one undermined by Jean Chretien and his loyalists, the one who hauled this country out of the debt of the Mulroney years, and turned us into a country that is the envy of the world. It won't take long, especially if the Conservatives make a hash of things.
Which is why we let the focus shift to the Tories. Give them every chance to screw up. Odds are 50 / 50 that they'll take it - remember, Stockwell Day is going to be a senior cabinet minister! Even Peter MacKay, a supposed moderate, likes to speculate about "women's knitting". There are only 14 women in their entire caucus. In short, they are who they are, and they won't be able to keep this facade up for very long - especially if they think they're safe for a while, and especially if we can bait them into doing something stupid.
That should take 4 to 8 months. Delay a leadership contest at least that long - get an interim leader in there, one of our guys. And remember - we still have our people in at the top.
"And," I imagine someone saying, "remember this - it worked for Trudeau! Heck - it worked for Napoleon!!"
Implausible?
Probably.
Almost certainly.
But ask yourself this - who is there to take Martin's place?
Frank McKenna, the current media darling? Nice guy, well-connected (perhaps a bit too well-connected for the average Liberal voter), but he lacks... "it". He's a manager, an accountant type - not the passionate leader that Liberals will want, and that they need. Besides, his claim to fame rests on being a modestly successful Premier of the third smallest province, New Brunswick. The Liberal Party has never elected a former Premier as party leader, much less one from a small province with only a handful of seats in the House of Commons. Why? Because they know that Canadians have never elected a former provincial Premier - even those from the bigger provinces - as Prime Minsiter (a lesson the Tories learned the hard way, over and over).
John Manley? Smart fellow, seems sincere, but he's as dull as wood - a point driven home if you saw him on the CBC election panel, next to two guys - Hugh Segal and Ed Broadbent - who do have charisma. Besides, he was right there during the Chretien years, so he's hardly a new face, is he? And where was he when the going got tough?
Brian Tobin? Puh-lease! The guy is as greasy as an auto mechanic after pulling a double-shift. Most Canadians trust him about as far as they can throw a fridge full of bricks. Besides, he's also a former Chretien minister. And he's also a former Premier, of a province even smaller than New Brunswick. And he used to be a rat-packer. And where was he when the going got tough? And... well, 'nuff said.
Belinda Stronach? Well, she's got enough money to make a run, but she stands to be about as successful as she was with her old party. She looks an awful lot like a 21st century Paul Hellyer - a person with a huge ego (mostly unjustified) who just can't bear to play the role of loyal supporter. Besides, do you think anyone in the Liberal party really trusts her? Not as far as they could throw Brian Tobin holding a fridge full of bricks. Do you think they even like her? Nope.
Anne McLellan? Just listening to her is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. Plus, Landslide Annie just got landslided herself. And like so many others, she is hardly a new face.
Ken Dryden? Great hockey player, untested politician. Maybe, someday, he'll be a contender, but he needs some more time as the back-up goalie.
Scott Brison? Suffers from some of the same problems Stronach does, re: trust, and some of the same problems that afflict McKenna and Tobin, re: coming from Atlantic Canada. He's also too closely associated with the defence of the last Liberal government - as Minister of Public Works, he was the point-man in the House of Commons on the scandals. Finally, although no-one will say it (and, in my opinion, it's a shame, and someday it will be different), the truth is that enough Canadians are not ready for a gay Prime Minister to ensure that Brison isn't going to get the job anytime soon.
Stephane Dion? Martin Cauchon? Jean Lapierre? Nope. Call it the Quebec factor, as in the next leader won't be from Quebec. Dion also suffers from the same terminal dullness that plagues Manley. Cauchon has an even bigger problem than that - as a die-hard Chretien loyalist, he's a divisive figure. He would command a solid core of support, but not enough to push him over.
Alan Rock? Has been. And then some.
Joe Volpe? Ujjal Dosanjh? Reg Alcock? Ralph Goodale? David Emerson? Maurizio Bevilacqua? Foot-soldiers, not leaders.
Bob Rae? Hahahahahaha... I can't believe people are actually speculating about him!
So, who else is there?
Michael Ignatieff.
On the surface, Ignatieff represents what the Liberals really want, and what they would sell their souls to get - another Philosopher-King, another Pierre Trudeau. The problem is that Ignatieff, to paraphrase the immortal words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen when talking about Dan Quayle and John Kennedy, is no Trudeau.
Yes, he's a bright guy. He's well spoken, and thoughtful - he's probably smarter than any three backbenchers put together. But he's an American. Well, okay, not exactly, but he's lived and worked there long enough to qualify under the Liberal definition of American. Plus, he supported the Iraq war. Not a popular position in the Liberal party, now or then. When he speaks on foreign policy, he sounds suspiciously like a neo-con. Also not good.
Finally, he's a bit... well, dull. Trudeau captured people's attention - at least at first - because he was seen as young (in fact, he was in his late 40s), and hip (well, for a politician anyway), and cool. He also captured the spirit of the times - sexy, radical, revolutionary, new (in a safe, don't rock the boat kind of way). Only later did he become the imperious, yet respected, Philosopher-King that most of us remember today.
Does anyone really think Ignatieff is cool? Does anyone really believe he's another Trudeau - especially when there's a real Trudeau (Justin) in the wings, who does have the sexy cool of his father, and the name?
The hype over Ignatieff reminds of General Georges Boulanger in France in 1888 - 1889. People saw Boulanger as a new Napoleon, a strong man who could restore France to its glory in the wake of the devastating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. But Boulanger was no Napoleon - he was a blank slate on which people projected their own hopes and aspirations. And, in the end, he failed to live up to those expectations. Which is what I think we can expect from Ignatieff (not necessarily his fault, mind you).
He's like a typical "honey trap" - sitting at the bar, drinking the right scotch, giving you the coy, come hither look, pretty, beguiling, a good conversationlist... "come with me," he'll say. And then it all goes to hell. Call it the "Trudeau Trap". The Liberals won't fall for it.
So, who's left?
That's right - Paul Martin. The guy who fought the good fight, first against corruption within his own party, and then against the forces of an American-style conservative movement that threatened everything Canadians hold dear, and kept them from gaining a majority government.
At least that's how I would spin it, in about 3 to 4 months, if I was Martin, or a top aide, and it might be what they're planning.
Finally, the worst thing the Liberals can do is let the Tories govern for any period of time. Yes, I know all the excuses - the Liberals are short of cash, they're short of ideas, and so on. But the time to strike is early on, as they did with Joe Clark, before the Conservatives can work out the kinks, and come to be seen as "THE government", as opposed to "the government".
Besides, as every musician knows, the applause grows loudest when they want an encore.
And as every lover knows, distance (whether physical or temporal) makes the heart grow fonder.
And as Paul Martin knows - it worked for Trudeau.
Call it the "Trudeau Trap" that works for the Liberals!
I'm sure it's not going to happen, of course.
But...
Paul Kimball
I admit, that was my initial reaction. It is almost certainly what's going to happen - when, after all, are the media and the chattering classes ever wrong?
But...
It could be a trap.
If I was Paul Martin, it would be a trap.
Stick with me here for a bit...
First, remember this - Paul Martin fought long, hard, and dirty, for years, to become Liberal leader / Prime Minister. Is this really something that he would give up, so easily, so quickly, as he did on election night, particularly when his party rebounded at the end of the campaign and did better than most people (myself included) expected?
Yes, maybe he really is tired of it all. And he is 67, although 70 seems to be the new 60, so I don't think that his age is really an issue (think of Francois Mitterand, or Ronald Reagan, or John McCain, the man who might be the next American president). But if that's the case, why stick around at all - to sit as a backbencher, a 21st century Diefenbaker? I don't think so. He's got a lot of money, and time, and better things to do.
Besides, here's the thing - he didn't look tired at the end of the campaign. He did at the beginning, which was part of the problem, but he came on strong at the end - too strong, according to many, with his over-the-top fear-mongering, but nobody could argue that he wasn't showing a great deal of energy at the end.
In fact, he looked a lot like a guy who had caught his second wind, who knew that, despite all of the scandals and all of the blunders, things had a chance of turning out better than people thought. The Party was going to survive - and, if he played his cards right, Paul Martin was going to survive.
So why quit?
Well, if I was Martin, I would quit in order to avoid the inevitable back-stabbing that would have happened had he stayed. No-one speaks ill of a departed leader. Indeed, the praise is already starting to come out from almost all corners - grudging at times, but certainly not the hammering he would be taking if he had stayed at the helm. Instead, his advisers are the guys taking the hits. Why not? They're loyalists to the core. At least some of them would gladly sacrifice themselves for the greater good, i.e. Paul Martin, because they still believe in the man.
They believe their guy was robbed. "Yes," they say, "we made some mistakes, but this is all Jean Chretien's fault. He ran the corrupt government. He was the tired old hack who just wanted the power. Our guy was a leader, a visionary, an honest man who tried to clean-up the mess, and took the hit for it. Our guy did all the heavy lifting, and Chretien took the credit. Chretien left us with no room to govern, no time to make our mark. It's all his fault!"
The truth is that there is more than a fair bit of merit in these claims. If Chretien had left a more stable regime behind, without the sponsorship scandal, I think there's a pretty good chance that Martin would be approaching the third year of his first majority government, and Stephen Harper would be criticizing him from the opposition benches, probably not as leader of the Tories.
Furthermore, consider this - Martin has always looked better when he didn't actually hold the top job. He worked best when his goal was to gain power, not hang onto it. In short, he thrived as the guy coming up from behind, and not as the front-runner.
Finally, don't forget - many of the MPs who remain in the Liberal caucus were Martinites. Many of them were shocked to see him step down so quickly.
Just like I was.
So, maybe, just maybe, this is part of a bigger plan, hatched in the dying days of the campaign. A plan to lay the groundwork for a quick Martin restoration.
It's a plan that goes something like this...
First, step up the attacks on the Tories and Harper. It won't win us the election, but it will scare enough voters to stick with the Liberals, and not vote Tory or NDP, so that we can maintain the Party as more than just a credible opposition - we'll be a government-in-exile. It will also allow us to say "we warned you" later, when they blow it.
Then we spin the results as if we actually exceeded expectations (by the time it ends, how many people will really remember how far we were ahead when the campaign started - thank God for long campaigns).
Get Martin out of the public eye for a bit. Have his advisers admit they let the boss down. Let people's impressions of him as a do-nothing, scandal-ridden Prime Minister recede, and let's focus on the "real Martin" - the one undermined by Jean Chretien and his loyalists, the one who hauled this country out of the debt of the Mulroney years, and turned us into a country that is the envy of the world. It won't take long, especially if the Conservatives make a hash of things.
Which is why we let the focus shift to the Tories. Give them every chance to screw up. Odds are 50 / 50 that they'll take it - remember, Stockwell Day is going to be a senior cabinet minister! Even Peter MacKay, a supposed moderate, likes to speculate about "women's knitting". There are only 14 women in their entire caucus. In short, they are who they are, and they won't be able to keep this facade up for very long - especially if they think they're safe for a while, and especially if we can bait them into doing something stupid.
That should take 4 to 8 months. Delay a leadership contest at least that long - get an interim leader in there, one of our guys. And remember - we still have our people in at the top.
"And," I imagine someone saying, "remember this - it worked for Trudeau! Heck - it worked for Napoleon!!"
Implausible?
Probably.
Almost certainly.
But ask yourself this - who is there to take Martin's place?
Frank McKenna, the current media darling? Nice guy, well-connected (perhaps a bit too well-connected for the average Liberal voter), but he lacks... "it". He's a manager, an accountant type - not the passionate leader that Liberals will want, and that they need. Besides, his claim to fame rests on being a modestly successful Premier of the third smallest province, New Brunswick. The Liberal Party has never elected a former Premier as party leader, much less one from a small province with only a handful of seats in the House of Commons. Why? Because they know that Canadians have never elected a former provincial Premier - even those from the bigger provinces - as Prime Minsiter (a lesson the Tories learned the hard way, over and over).
John Manley? Smart fellow, seems sincere, but he's as dull as wood - a point driven home if you saw him on the CBC election panel, next to two guys - Hugh Segal and Ed Broadbent - who do have charisma. Besides, he was right there during the Chretien years, so he's hardly a new face, is he? And where was he when the going got tough?
Brian Tobin? Puh-lease! The guy is as greasy as an auto mechanic after pulling a double-shift. Most Canadians trust him about as far as they can throw a fridge full of bricks. Besides, he's also a former Chretien minister. And he's also a former Premier, of a province even smaller than New Brunswick. And he used to be a rat-packer. And where was he when the going got tough? And... well, 'nuff said.
Belinda Stronach? Well, she's got enough money to make a run, but she stands to be about as successful as she was with her old party. She looks an awful lot like a 21st century Paul Hellyer - a person with a huge ego (mostly unjustified) who just can't bear to play the role of loyal supporter. Besides, do you think anyone in the Liberal party really trusts her? Not as far as they could throw Brian Tobin holding a fridge full of bricks. Do you think they even like her? Nope.
Anne McLellan? Just listening to her is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. Plus, Landslide Annie just got landslided herself. And like so many others, she is hardly a new face.
Ken Dryden? Great hockey player, untested politician. Maybe, someday, he'll be a contender, but he needs some more time as the back-up goalie.
Scott Brison? Suffers from some of the same problems Stronach does, re: trust, and some of the same problems that afflict McKenna and Tobin, re: coming from Atlantic Canada. He's also too closely associated with the defence of the last Liberal government - as Minister of Public Works, he was the point-man in the House of Commons on the scandals. Finally, although no-one will say it (and, in my opinion, it's a shame, and someday it will be different), the truth is that enough Canadians are not ready for a gay Prime Minister to ensure that Brison isn't going to get the job anytime soon.
Stephane Dion? Martin Cauchon? Jean Lapierre? Nope. Call it the Quebec factor, as in the next leader won't be from Quebec. Dion also suffers from the same terminal dullness that plagues Manley. Cauchon has an even bigger problem than that - as a die-hard Chretien loyalist, he's a divisive figure. He would command a solid core of support, but not enough to push him over.
Alan Rock? Has been. And then some.
Joe Volpe? Ujjal Dosanjh? Reg Alcock? Ralph Goodale? David Emerson? Maurizio Bevilacqua? Foot-soldiers, not leaders.
Bob Rae? Hahahahahaha... I can't believe people are actually speculating about him!
So, who else is there?
Michael Ignatieff.
On the surface, Ignatieff represents what the Liberals really want, and what they would sell their souls to get - another Philosopher-King, another Pierre Trudeau. The problem is that Ignatieff, to paraphrase the immortal words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen when talking about Dan Quayle and John Kennedy, is no Trudeau.
Yes, he's a bright guy. He's well spoken, and thoughtful - he's probably smarter than any three backbenchers put together. But he's an American. Well, okay, not exactly, but he's lived and worked there long enough to qualify under the Liberal definition of American. Plus, he supported the Iraq war. Not a popular position in the Liberal party, now or then. When he speaks on foreign policy, he sounds suspiciously like a neo-con. Also not good.
Finally, he's a bit... well, dull. Trudeau captured people's attention - at least at first - because he was seen as young (in fact, he was in his late 40s), and hip (well, for a politician anyway), and cool. He also captured the spirit of the times - sexy, radical, revolutionary, new (in a safe, don't rock the boat kind of way). Only later did he become the imperious, yet respected, Philosopher-King that most of us remember today.
Does anyone really think Ignatieff is cool? Does anyone really believe he's another Trudeau - especially when there's a real Trudeau (Justin) in the wings, who does have the sexy cool of his father, and the name?
The hype over Ignatieff reminds of General Georges Boulanger in France in 1888 - 1889. People saw Boulanger as a new Napoleon, a strong man who could restore France to its glory in the wake of the devastating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. But Boulanger was no Napoleon - he was a blank slate on which people projected their own hopes and aspirations. And, in the end, he failed to live up to those expectations. Which is what I think we can expect from Ignatieff (not necessarily his fault, mind you).
He's like a typical "honey trap" - sitting at the bar, drinking the right scotch, giving you the coy, come hither look, pretty, beguiling, a good conversationlist... "come with me," he'll say. And then it all goes to hell. Call it the "Trudeau Trap". The Liberals won't fall for it.
So, who's left?
That's right - Paul Martin. The guy who fought the good fight, first against corruption within his own party, and then against the forces of an American-style conservative movement that threatened everything Canadians hold dear, and kept them from gaining a majority government.
At least that's how I would spin it, in about 3 to 4 months, if I was Martin, or a top aide, and it might be what they're planning.
Finally, the worst thing the Liberals can do is let the Tories govern for any period of time. Yes, I know all the excuses - the Liberals are short of cash, they're short of ideas, and so on. But the time to strike is early on, as they did with Joe Clark, before the Conservatives can work out the kinks, and come to be seen as "THE government", as opposed to "the government".
Besides, as every musician knows, the applause grows loudest when they want an encore.
And as every lover knows, distance (whether physical or temporal) makes the heart grow fonder.
And as Paul Martin knows - it worked for Trudeau.
Call it the "Trudeau Trap" that works for the Liberals!
I'm sure it's not going to happen, of course.
But...
Paul Kimball
posted by Paul Kimball at 1/26/2006 12:12:00 AM
6 Comments:
Good Lord, Paul. I hope most of what you have written you have done so either under the influence of alcohol, or from the point of view of a Liberal strategist. This is scary stuff from where I sit.
Bear in mind this: Stephen Harper is not Joe Clark. Stephen Harper is not promising to increase the gas tax. Stephen Harper has not declared that he will govern as if he had a majority.
As for your comment about Brison's sexual orientation being his (political) Achilles Heel, you may be right. I disagree that it's a shame, though, at least in his case. Scott Brison has done much to advance the notion that if you just accept homosexuality, and don't celebrate it, you're a homophobe. I have no time for enforced political correctness; it is cancer on modern Western society. There was a time when Scott had no time for it either, but then his immense ambition and fetish for loud partisanship got the better of him, and we have today's version of him.
Oh, and I am looking forward to seeing Stockwell Day in the cabinet, with a senior position.
A bunch of people have brought up Ontario Education Minister Gerard Kennedy with me in various conversations over the last couple of days. I think he could be the dark horse.
CalgaryGrit is uptodate. Why is Gerard Kennedy not on this list?
Remember the last Liberal leadership race, or non race... as it eventually became after the absolute jackboot,steam roller,with us or else,rule fixing,membership form controlling,meeting date rigging,executive overthrowing, (insert your favourite tactic) ... "Martinites" engineered a virtual coronation.
Well my fellow Liberals..just insert the name McKenna wherever Martin appears in your individual memory... same "Board", same style,I'm convinced the deal was done when McKenna agreed not to run last time.
It has started already..watch the Martinite/McKenna forces push for as short a campaign as possible to prevent any fresh faces from having a chance.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/01/25/1411597-cp.html
As for laughing at Bob Rae, some pretty well connected people are telling me that it is almost a certainty that he will run.
Ontario Cabinet Minister Gerard Kennedy could muster a decent team of supporters and organizers, culled largely from the former Rock and Copps folks. He would be clearly on the "left" of the field, maybe even more so than Rae. Money could be a big issue, the kind of funds he would need to build his profile to a national level, especially if McKenna gets his wish for a short campaign could be hard to raise. Also,would McGuinty allow him to go off chasing the Federal Leadership without giving up his provincial seat. Big risk for a "dark horse" , "long shot" or "fresh face" as he is being described. I think the guy has what it takes for the job and would be a very attractive Leader vs Harper but not sure he has the time or the money to pull it off.
TM:
You know I'm just kidding! No way is Martin THAT clever, and, if you know anything about Trudeau's return (as I know you do), it was hardly a great plan by him from the get-go (Jim Coutts deserves most of the credit). Still, with the Liberals, anything is possible, and if I was Harper, I'd mind my P's and Q's for a while.
As for Brison, however, I do think it's a shame. Whatever you might think of his views, or how he presents them, we should be beyond caring about a person's sexual orientation. All that matters to me is whether he could do the job or not (he couldn't, in my opinion, but that's a different story).
But, as you might say, I'm wishy washy! :-)
TTFN,
Paul
North of French River:
I laugh at Rae because he has no shot of winning, not because he isn't going to run, or isn't a decent guy. The Liberals will never elect a former NDP provincial premier (who lost) as their leader. Just isn't going to happen.
Neither will they elect Kenendy, a provincial cabinet minister. That's just wishful thinking by a few Ontarioans who are disgruntled that the center of the universe has moved to Calgary for a while.
Thanks for stopping by, though! :-)
Paul
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home