Chantal Hébert's Article

[August1991]

Paul Wells made a big deal of Chantal Hébert's article in French and in English.

I agree this article is important. But I have a different take on it. But for fun, I'll start with two inconsequential points.

First, it is tough in Canada to write the same political ideas in two languages. It requires an extremely clear idea of the country. Trudeau had that. The ideas have to be absolutely clear and defendable in any circumstance, even the words and style. (eg. pleutre = poltroon. I always figured Trudeau did that himself.)

Second, Hebert. True, The Toronto Star bailed her out (to the Star's advantage) but I have always wondered how she feels about Lysiane Gagnon. (I strongly prefer Pierre Foglia - bicycles and all.)

In this article, Hebert makes the argument that Martin is a "bad Liberal" and he will lose this election. She argues that Chretien was a "good Liberal" and would have won a fourth term. She provides a list of issues which Chretien would have managed differently from Martin.

Reading this, I was struck. We can continue to put band-aids, plasters, duct tape on this thing called Canada, but eventually, something has to change.

True, Chretien may well have won this election by the old methods. But eventually, we must face the nature of Canada under the glare of honest reason. (For example, who must ensure French will be spoken on this continent in the future?)

Martin opened this box up; Harper has opened it further. Hebert is writing about an old Canada that never really existed, except maybe in the mind of a Trudeau accolyte. (Hebert's not that but she's wondering along those lines, I think.)

Trudeau kicked the ball down the field. Martin, in his own way, has done the same. Now, let's see where this Harper kicks it. Canada is an ongoing work in progress. Fasten your seat belts. Let us all in a civilized manner ensure that we find a civilized way to ensure a civilized society for the future. The means often matter more than the ends.

[Dennis]

Hebert's article had an impact on me as well, but in a slightly differernt sense. And I do think it revealed her liberal leanings on policy issues, especially because I don't think Chretien would have as easy a time in place of Martin as Ms. Hebert assumes.

I think Stephane Dion came out today making the bold statement that Chretien would have jumped on the recent emplyoment and economic growth numbers as part of the ongoing campaign. I know Clinton would have done the same down south, and he was a master campaigner.

However, I think people only have so much tolerance for the so-called abortion and social values bombs that get dropped every time right-wingers seek office in this country. Even the economic arguments become tiring if seen as a distraction from other important matters, or if voters believe the economy will do just fine with new leadership, like they did with Bush in 2000.

This election is about getting a government which people feel they can trust. I don't think the Canadian people trust Jean Chretien any more than they do Paul Martin. In fact, they may even trust him less. Much of the cynicism people have towards government today is the direct result of what people think Chretien did with it for the last decade.

So, yes, Chretien might have done a better job at focusing on the kinds of things that won him elections throughout the nineties. The question remains, just as it does with Paul Martin today, whether or not people would accept it as a consolation for arrogant and distant governance. I'm not sure they would.

Let's also not forget that Jean Chretien recieved high approval ratings when there was no meaningful governing alternative to speak of. I believe much of his popularity came from the comfort people had with a veteran politician carrying a party brand name people valued over the Alliance, Bloc, once glourious PC's, and the NDP.

Furthermore, I think Ms. Hebert falls into the same kind of psychological trap that many elites do in this country. They may think social issues like abortion and gay marriage are a matter of life and death, many Canadians probably don't.

Which might explain why, despite all this talk about abortion and social values, the Conservatives are still rising in the polls, and the Liberals are slip-sliding away.

[August1991]

I think Stephane Dion came out today making the bold statement that Chretien would have jumped on the recent emplyoment and economic growth numbers as part of the ongoing campaign.

Canadians may not say it in polls, but the Clinton argument works for us too. The stats say we are better off now than four years ago. Why didn't the Libs run on that?

However, I think people only have so much tolerance for the so-called abortion and social values bombs that get dropped every time right-wingers seek office in this country.

I agree, but it depends on the candidate. BTW, the PQ has suffered every scaremonger challenge in the book. It's comical (ironic?)to see Harper vilified in Quebec the same way.

This election is about getting a government which people feel they can trust.

True, a government is not simply dollars and cents. Like it or not, a leader must watch over the interests of the collective. In Quebec, that means ensurance of the so-called French Fact. In Canada, what is it? Most PMs have interpreted it to mean the unity of the country.

Let's also not forget that Jean Chretien recieved high approval ratings when there was no meaningful governing alternative to speak of.

You're right, but I disagree. Chretien was a crowd pleaser. A retail politician.

Furthermore, I think Ms. Hebert falls into the same kind of psychological trap that many elites do in this country.

Trudeau and Crosbie, to pick two examples, understood that the media elite was a paper tiger easy to resist. Maybe Harper in his own way will do the same. English media is a small group, subject to herd behaviour. Outside of Quebec, French media is just a mini confused group. All perform the basic job of reporting. Harper already seems to understand how to use them to get his message out.

Dennis, I read and like your posts. My point in my first post was that PM PM strayed off the traditional (Trudeau) federal Liberal line. (Or rather, PM PM went back to a Laurier and King approach of accomodation. Pearson did the same with the CPP, until Trudeau got his ear.)

Papering over the problem doesn't mean it is not there. If Meech Lake had passed, there would have been no referendum in 1995 and Canada would still be intact. In one way or another, we will inevitably negotiate a new Meech Lake. PM PM accepted this fact. Dion would deny it absolutely.