Who is/was more divisive: Harper or Trudeau?

[August1991]

I suspect that the "Toronto elite", in John Baird's words, will soon accuse Stephen Harper of being divisive. The National CBC in Toronto, The Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe & Mail, the Toronto CTV, the Toronto Global network and even the National Post will soon claim that Stephen Harper is a divisive politician. He seeks wedge issues.

And yet. Trudeau was also a very controversial, divisive politician.

So, who divided/has divided Canada more: Trudeau or Harper?

Edited September 21, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Speaking of wedge politics... I find the use of pejorative labels to be inherently divisive and this one small statement contradicts and otherwise sound argument. Generally the use of phrases such as "right wing nut", "socialist", "special interest groups", "Toronto/urban Elites" or "country bumpkins" are pejorative and truly have no place in civilized discourse. Regardless of where one is from, or of their political stripe, their arguments can't simply be dismissed because we choose to label them as whatever "undesirable" happens to be in vogue.

Dave, well said. BTW, your post was an inspiraton for this thread, the OP. Edited September 21, 2010 by August1991

[waldo]

opposing the divisive politics of Harper Conservatives... has consequences!

[ToadBrother]

I suspect that the "Toronto elite", in John Baird's words, will soon accuse Stephen Harper of being divisive. The National CBC in Toronto, The Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe & Mail, the Toronto CTV, the Toronto Global network and even the National Post will soon claim that Stephen Harper is a divisive politician. He seeks wedge issues.

And yet. Trudeau was also a very controversial, divisive politician.

So, who divided/has divided Canada more: Trudeau or Harper?

It's no contest. Trudeau obviously was more divisive, from beginning to end he was a man who courted controversy, even encouraged it at times. Off the top of my head the National Energy Program and Quebec being left out of the final constitutional agreements both tower over any kind of controversy that Harper has caused.

[Shwa]

It's no contest. Trudeau obviously was more divisive, from beginning to end he was a man who courted controversy, even encouraged it at times. Off the top of my head the National Energy Program and Quebec being left out of the final constitutional agreements both tower over any kind of controversy that Harper has caused.

Maybe that is the key - having the balls to stand up for what you believe in, controversial or not. I mean PET was around for a long time, won majority governments and has an enduring legacy. Harper is still a wee pup and who knows if he will win enough seats to create a legacy of his own.

[Michael Hardner]

It's no contest. Trudeau obviously was more divisive, from beginning to end he was a man who courted controversy, even encouraged it at times. Off the top of my head the National Energy Program and Quebec being left out of the final constitutional agreements both tower over any kind of controversy that Harper has caused.

Agreed. All you have to do is look at the list of regions that claim to feel alienated by each PM. Harper really only has Toronto, and everybody hates Toronto so we're good.

[PIK]

Trudeau by far, he divided canada more then anyone else.And I hear people saying hsarper is using the gun reg as a wedge issue, hate to break it to you but it is a campaign promise, and he is sticking with it, now I know that would confuse liberals (sticking to a promise),but that is all it is.And who divided the country with the gun reg, the liberals.

Edited September 21, 2010 by PIK

[Dave_ON]

Oh that's a tough one. On the surface Mr. Trudeau is the obvious choice, and he did so knowingly with the best of intentions. Mr. Harper on the other hand is either doing so unwittingly or far more insidiously. Despite my own dislike of Mr. Harper I'm inclined to believe it is the former. Nevertheless he is indeed divisive, though in a very different way from previous PM's. Previous PM's have always tended to play one region against the other; Mr. Harper is breaking with this great Canadian tradition and appears to divide along an urban/rural line as is evidenced by the election results and polls. Also interesting to note is there is a stark gender divide as well, with men tending towards the CPC and women toward the LPC.

[nicky10013]

It's easily Harper, not just Harper but the Reform Party and western Conservatives in general. Sure, on the surface PET instituted those programmes and they caused division in the country, but the programmes he implemented at least were targeted at all Canadians. The NEP among other things was divisive and completely dismantled only after a couple of years.

The Reform Party and Stephen Harper on the other hand, haven't stopped reminding the west of a mistake made 30 years ago. The only reason why they get elected in the west is because they foment hatred of Eastern Canada by bringing things up like "Toronto Elites." You've seen it here on these boards multiple times from the likes of "Altaforever" that all the East wants to do is rob the west. Considering that actually doesn't happen in reality, where do you think they get the idea from? Reform and Western Conservatives have done more damage to Canadian Unity than any person could ever do.

[Alta4ever]

Oh that's a tough one. On the surface Mr. Trudeau is the obvious choice, and he did so knowingly with the best of intentions. Mr. Harper on the other hand is either doing so unwittingly or far more insidiously. Despite my own dislike of Mr. Harper I'm inclined to believe it is the former. Nevertheless he is indeed divisive, though in a very different way from previous PM's. Previous PM's have always tended to play one region against the other; Mr. Harper is breaking with this great Canadian tradition and appears to divide along an urban/rural line as is evidenced by the election results and polls. Also interesting to note is there is a stark gender divide as well, with men tending towards the CPC and women toward the LPC.

I'm sure it was with the best of intentions when he lifted the middle finger. Or mouth "fuddle duddle" at the opposition in the HOC.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Alta4ever

[The_Squid]

Of course Trudeau was divisive.... but he won majority governments on several occasions. So how does someone who is as divisive as people claim Trudeau was win the majority of seats in parliament? I would say that, although he was divisive in some respects, this trait has been over-stated. Obviously something else over-shadowed his divisiveness to allow him to be called one of the greatest PM's in Canada's history... Charisma? Government policies? Aggressiveness? His divisive nature was a distant 4th to his other traits....

Harper cannot win a majority government even though his opposition is split (with 2 "left leaning" parties and the Libs were in a shambles after the scandals that occured while they formed government.

This leads me to the conclusion that Harper and his Party are so divisive that they cannot bring enough Canadians to their side to win a majority even when the main opposition party is in complete disarray.

A good example of the way Harper governs is the decision to get rid of the Veteran's Ombudsman who was critical of the government. Harper's divisiveness is the first thing people will think of... that will be his legacy.

Edited September 21, 2010 by The_Squid

[Dave_ON]

Agreed. All you have to do is look at the list of regions that claim to feel alienated by each PM. Harper really only has Toronto, and everybody hates Toronto so we're good.

I'm not so sure Toronto is the only one that feels this way, I think any major city agrees, TO is just the most vociferous, and yes the perception of TO in this country is that TO regards itself as the centre of the universe. It's a low hanging fruit tactic at best. Seriously though, the CPC didn't and likely will not win a single seat in NF, Maritimes they have lukewarm support, and Quebec they are a distant third. In Ontario their support seems to have stagnated. Whether the gun registry is a employed intentionally as a wedge is indeterminate, what remains clearly evident is that it is a wedge issue and is dividing straight down the urban/rural divide.

[Evening Star]

Voted Trudeau, in the same way that Lincoln or FDR were more divisive than Gerald Ford. Greater accomplishments create greater divisions.

[Dave_ON]

I'm sure it was with the best of intentions when he lifted the middle finger. Or mouth "fuddle duddle" at the opposition in the HOC.

Oh I never said he wasn't autocratic or arrogant, he had both qualities in large supply. However, I do believe he was working for a strong federal government as is part and parcel with being autocratic I suppose. Than again what PM that divides people so starkly hasn't been arrogant and autocratic? Think of the PM's that haven't been, Martin, Campbell (as far as we can tell that is), Turner, Clark. All lacked the certain je ne c'est quoi, that gives a PM a legacy. Whether that's infamy or otherwise is a matter of perspective I suppose. However, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the Albertan ire rises at the very mention of the name Trudeau, honestly we're nigh on 30 years since the NEP.

[PIK]

Oh I never said he wasn't autocratic or arrogant, he had both qualities in large supply. However, I do believe he was working for a strong federal government as is part and parcel with being autocratic I suppose. Than again what PM that divides people so starkly hasn't been arrogant and autocratic? Think of the PM's that haven't been, Martin, Campbell (as far as we can tell that is), Turner, Clark. All lacked the certain je ne c'est quoi, that gives a PM a legacy. Whether that's infamy or otherwise is a matter of perspective I suppose. However, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the Albertan ire rises at the very mention of the name Trudeau, honestly we're nigh on 30 years since the NEP.

Multi culturism and biligualism has really united the country.

[Dave_ON]

Multi culturism and biligualism has really united the country.

I don't recall saying it or Trudeau had, all I said is he was autocratic and wanted a strong federal government.

[ToadBrother]

Oh that's a tough one. On the surface Mr. Trudeau is the obvious choice, and he did so knowingly with the best of intentions. Mr. Harper on the other hand is either doing so unwittingly or far more insidiously. Despite my own dislike of Mr. Harper I'm inclined to believe it is the former. Nevertheless he is indeed divisive, though in a very different way from previous PM's. Previous PM's have always tended to play one region against the other; Mr. Harper is breaking with this great Canadian tradition and appears to divide along an urban/rural line as is evidenced by the election results and polls. Also interesting to note is there is a stark gender divide as well, with men tending towards the CPC and women toward the LPC.

Nonsense. Harper's has no capacity for that kind of divisiveness. Even if he had the ability, he, like most of the Reformers, have always had their sights set significantly lower. Senate reform, as noble as the idea may be (whether it's strictly a good idea or not is another question), is a rather modest kind of goal compared to, say, Patriation of the Constitution. For better or for worse Trudeau thought very very very big, and used every once of his political capital and power to pursue those sorts of goals.

Harper's just another street fighter like Chretien. Neither have particularly big ideas, but a lot of small ideas that they like to imagine are huge. The same goes for Mulroney, who hated living in Trudeau's shadow, and yet, despite his electoral successes, never had Trudeau's ability to create the big ideas.

I'm no fan of Trudeau, but love him or hate him, he was a political giant who cast his shadow politically and constitutionally across Canada. Harper will mainly be remembered, I'm sure, for some constitutionally dubious maneuvers (certainly not the first PM to do that) and for somehow managing to keep a minority government afloat through at least two terms (maybe more, I'm stilling thinking we might see possibly the first full-term minority government in Canadian history). Frankly Harper's most substantial achievement was reuniting the Right, a messy job and just the kind of job for a bulldog like Harper.

[ToadBrother]

Multi culturism and biligualism has really united the country.

Maybe not, but the country was hardly well-united before those policies. And if Trudeau did one thing, he finally forced Quebec completely out of the shell it had built around itself after the Plains of Abraham. Of course, it got out of its shell to try to swat Trudeau down. Trudeau had a nack for that.

[PIK]

Nonsense. Harper's has no capacity for that kind of divisiveness. Even if he had the ability, he, like most of the Reformers, have always had their sights set significantly lower. Senate reform, as noble as the idea may be (whether it's strictly a good idea or not is another question), is a rather modest kind of goal compared to, say, Patriation of the Constitution. For better or for worse Trudeau thought very very very big, and used every once of his political capital and power to pursue those sorts of goals.

Harper's just another street fighter like Chretien. Neither have particularly big ideas, but a lot of small ideas that they like to imagine are huge. The same goes for Mulroney, who hated living in Trudeau's shadow, and yet, despite his electoral successes, never had Trudeau's ability to create the big ideas.

I'm no fan of Trudeau, but love him or hate him, he was a political giant who cast his shadow politically and constitutionally across Canada. Harper will mainly be remembered, I'm sure, for some constitutionally dubious maneuvers (certainly not the first PM to do that) and for somehow managing to keep a minority government afloat through at least two terms (maybe more, I'm stilling thinking we might see possibly the first full-term minority government in Canadian history). Frankly Harper's most substantial achievement was reuniting the Right, a messy job and just the kind of job for a bulldog like Harper.

Very well said.

[August1991]

Harper's just another street fighter like Chretien. Neither have particularly big ideas, but a lot of small ideas that they like to imagine are huge. The same goes for Mulroney, who hated living in Trudeau's shadow, and yet, despite his electoral successes, never had Trudeau's ability to create the big ideas.

TB, I understand your point concerning Harper/Chretien but I will take issue about Mulroney. Mulroney brought in Free Trade, the GST, wanted to reform UIC and almost got Meech Lake through. If Meech Lake had passed, contrary to Trudeau's opposition, the Bloc would never have existed, there would have been no 1995 referendum and the PQ would be moribund. The Quebec government would be a signatory to Canada's constitution which, because of Trudeau's pique, it is not. Moreover, Trudeau - supposedly the brilliant hardline federalist intellectual - saddled Canada with a compromised Charter of Rights that is arguably worse than no Charter at all. What were the other achievements of Trudeau? Wage and price controls? The NEP?

Sorry for the rant.

Oh that's a tough one. On the surface Mr. Trudeau is the obvious choice, and he did so knowingly with the best of intentions. Mr. Harper on the other hand is either doing so unwittingly or far more insidiously.

Notwithstanding my rant above, Dave, you make a good point.

While he was divisive, Trudeau attempted to speak for all of Canada. As Trudeau used to say, "I want to put Quebec in its place, and its place is in Canada." When speaking to the provincial premiers, he often asked: "But who speaks for Canada?"

It's easily Harper, not just Harper but the Reform Party and western Conservatives in general. Sure, on the surface PET instituted those programmes and they caused division in the country, but the programmes he implemented at least were targeted at all Canadians.

Nicky, do you realize how stupid/insulting your comment is? "All Canadians"? The NEP was beneficial to people in Ontario and Quebec, for example, but they are hardly "all Canadians".

It is easy to agree with a politician when they do what you want. But to say that that they are not divisive is naive.

----

I will give credit to Trudeau (and not Harper) on one point. The fundamental faultline in Canada was once religion, between Catholics and Protestants. Now, the line is on language - English and French. Trudeau, a Catholic, educated in French with a Scottish (Catholic) English-speaking mother, carefully avoided these divisions. He united Protestant and Catholic, English and French Canadians. If Trudeau divided Canadians, the divisions were drawn on other issues.

Harper, OTOH, has not bridged well this critical linguistic divide in modern Canada, or even the historic religious divide. What would Harper do faced with a 1976 Air Contollers strike, or another Conscription crisis? He might be as incompetent as Diefenbaker in 1959 when CBC/R-C were on strike.

I know that Canada is divided by regions and reference to language riles westerners, Albertans in particular. But I happen to think that the language divide (and even historic religious divide) is fundamental to the country.

Edited September 23, 2010 by August1991

[Evening Star]

What were the other achievements of Trudeau? Wage and price controls? The NEP?

Official bilingualism, official multiculturalism, abolition of the death penalty, huge expansion of immigration to Canada (especially non-white immigration), the CRTC, CIDA, decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion, recognition of China (before Nixon), major reductions in Canada's nuclear arsenal, the current home of the National Gallery.

The claim that the PQ would be moribund if Meech Lake had passed is speculation. One could just as easily argue that separatism might still be a violent terrorist movement if not for Trudeau.

[August1991]

Official bilingualism, official multiculturalism, abolition of the death penalty, huge expansion of immigration to Canada (especially non-white immigration), the CRTC, CIDA, decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion, recognition of China (before Nixon), major reductions in Canada's nuclear arsenal, the current home of the National Gallery.

I loved "the current home of the National Gallery" as a Trudeau claim to fame. And I thought it was the Museum of Civilization in Hull.

And did Canada have a nuclear arsenal before Trudeau? (News to me. A Google search later, yes it did. Pearson accepted the Bomarc missiles in 1963.) Recognition of China?

So, Trudeau's claim to fame is a museum, irrelevant nuclear missiles and recognition of China.

If I'm not mistaken, the decriminalization of homosexuality occurred when Trudeau was justice minister, not PM. And it was part of the usual reform of the Criminal Code. I agree however that in 1967, Trudeau had some courage.

Immigration? Trudeau's Green Paper and 1976 Immigration law has turned into a disaster. Most Canadians were/are in favour of a non-racial, points-based system of selection. It is hard to imagine a greater botched public policy.

The claim that the PQ would be moribund if Meech Lake had passed is speculation. One could just as easily argue that separatism might still be a violent terrorist movement if not for Trudeau.

I think you're right about official bilingualism, but the FLQ intrigues me.

Trudeau stood up to the FLQ unlike any Obama, or a nuanced Kerry. Truth be told, Trudeau was worse than George W. Bush. Trudeau put over 400 people in jail for several months on mere heresay.

I agree however that Trudeau made French possible in Ottawa. He made people in Quebec see Ottawa as a possible career move. Trudeau's official bilingualism simply meant that francophones could work in the federal bureaucracy. In this, Trudeau was very divisive and controversial - but if you believe in a federal Canada, it was a good thing.

Edited September 23, 2010 by August1991

[Evening Star]

I loved "the current home of the National Gallery" as a Trudeau claim to fame. And I thought it was the Museum of Civilization in Hull.

It was both, actually, but I'll freely admit that they are probably much less important to people who didn't grow up in Ottawa.

So, Trudeau's claim to fame is a museum, irrelevant nuclear missiles and recognition of China.

Multiculturalism and abolition of the death penalty were major accomplishments in my eyes and...

If I'm not mistaken, the decriminalization of homosexuality occurred when Trudeau was justice minister, not PM. And it was part of the usual reform of the Criminal Code. I agree however that in 1967, Trudeau had some courage.

Bill C-150 was introduced in 1967, yes, but it was passed in 1969 (when PET was PM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-150

It was undoubtedly the product of Trudeau's own vision in any case.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the usual reform of the Criminal Code". I'm inclined to agree with Turner that it was "the most important and all-embracing reform of the criminal and penal law ever attempted at one time in this country". What the hell has Harper done that compares?

Immigration? Trudeau's Green Paper and 1976 Immigration law has turned into a disaster. Most Canadians were/are in favour of a non-racial, points-based system of selection. It is hard to imagine a greater botched public policy.

Clearly we disagree about the 1976 policy. (The Green Paper was probably ill-conceived.) Still, it's hard to deny that fundamental changes were made to Canadian immigration policy under Trudeau.

The CRTC has had a huge impact on Canadian culture, as has been discussed on other threads.

I think you're right about official bilingualism, but the FLQ intrigues me.

Trudeau stood up to the FLQ unlike any Obama, or a nuanced Kerry. Truth be told, Trudeau was worse than George W. Bush. Trudeau put over 400 people in jail for several months on mere heresay.

Heh, that's less than half the number of people who were arrested during the G20 demonstrations.

Seriously, though, I'm not totally sure on what grounds Trudeau is being compared to Kerry or Obama here. The FLQ had been active as a seriously violent domestic terrorist organization for years prior to the October Crisis. There were other violent separatist groups as well. The kidnapping of major government officials in this context could have suggested a genuine threat of insurrection. What situations were Kerry or even Obama dealing with that are comparable?

Having said this, I actually think that the handling of the situation was excessive - and certainly the RCMP's continued covert investigation and harrassment of separatists afterwards was shameful. However, it is also true that since the October Crisis, the separatist movement has been a peaceful and democratic movement!

(I was admittedly mostly just trying to make the point that it's a bit silly to speculate on what the separatist movement 'might have been' had various federal policies gone one way or the other. I don't necessarily think that this was Trudeau's proudest moment.)

Speaking of which, the decisive victory over separatism in the 1980 Referendum has to be at least partly credited to Trudeau - and it was by many leading PQ members.

I agree however that Trudeau made French possible in Ottawa. He made people in Quebec see Ottawa as a possible career move. Trudeau's official bilingualism simply meant that francophones could work in the federal bureaucracy. In this, Trudeau was very divisive and controversial - but if you believe in a federal Canada, it was a good thing.

Yeah, no doubt about this.

I may as well admit that I actually like at least the principles behind Trudeau's more social democratic and even protectionist economic policies, although I'm not an economist by any stretch. I tend to feel that more public control over natural resources could be a good thing.

I give Mulroney plenty of credit for his environmental and foreign policies, by the way.

[nicky10013]

Nicky, do you realize how stupid/insulting your comment is? "All Canadians"? The NEP was beneficial to people in Ontario and Quebec, for example, but they are hardly "all Canadians".

It is easy to agree with a politician when they do what you want. But to say that that they are not divisive is naive.

The goal of the programme was to give lower energy prices from Newfoundland to British Columbia. I certainly admitted that the NEP was divisive, but that wasn't it's intention and to ignore that is to be equally as naive. Reform/Alliance/CPCs goal has been absolutely to be divisive. They keep bringing up these long dead programmes with absolutely no relevance to today to drive home the point that everyone in the east hates everyone in the west. The truth is closer to the fact that no one in the east really cares like with most other people. They go on about their daily lives. Yet, in the heat of a campaign it's a vote getter. Despite how untruthful it may be, the fact that it's been repeated for 30 years gives the notion credence and the east/west rural/urban divide has hurt Canada's unity the most. No one has done more to drive those divides than the party currently in power. Just last week over the gun registry Baird invoked the dreaded "Toronto Elites" bullshit. Ridiculous.

Edited September 23, 2010 by nicky10013

[Evening Star]

(FWIW, I totally loathe the decentralism of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords and think they would have been disastrous. So I also give Trudeau credit for opposing them so strongly.)