Who is/was more divisive: Harper or Trudeau?

[ToadBrother]

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?

I'd say the patriation of the Constitution still outweighs future reforms. And as the Newman tapes reveal, Mulroney was bitterly in Trudeau's shadow. And it can hardly be blamed solely on Trudeau that Quebec didn't sign, that was much Levesque's own petulance coming out.

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.

That may be, but when I look at another Western bilingual country, Belgium, and what looks like an approaching final break between the Flemish and the Walloons, I have to think, particularly after 1995 we've headed in the other direction. The Bloc still has Quebec separation on the books, but clearly there's no appetite for any of that wrangling at all.

There will always be divides. Canada seems to me to be unique in thinking that its divisions are somehow special, and yet when you look even at the US, there are sharp divides between regions. Federalism, whatever form it takes, is about finding ways around such disunity. I can't agree with everything Trudeau did, but he did have vision, and that is something that the current batch of politicians lack. Like I said in another post, it's all small ideas dressed up as big ones. Yes, we all want a more responsible and transparent Parliament, yes it would be nice to bring the Senate into the 21st century (or maybe even the 20th), yes we need to maintain the military and be good to our soldiers, but these are all mundane management ideas. There's little sweep to them. I know that as I watched Trudeau's funeral, there was a real sense that a giant of Canadian life, not just political or governmental, but a part of that nebulous amorphous entity died. A guy like Harper, even Chretien, who had his political tutelage under Trudeau, for all the political wit and skill, neither has that grand sense of occasion.

I remember watching the patriation as a kid, and I'm sorry, neither Meech Lake or Charlottetown ever came close to equaling that most extraordinary of events. Yes, there was blood on the floor, Quebec sulking in the corner feeling put upon by those treacherous Anglos, but in every sense of the word we, and that includes Quebec, ceased to be a colony, ceased to be a dependency of another power, free in absolute terms to chart our own course. That's one hell of a legacy, and legacy that for most politicians of even the highest office is unimaginable.

It doesn't make Trudeau a better person, and it doesn't make up for the outrageous mythologizing that he himself was encouraging up until his final retreat from public life, but it puts him in a very rare group in the history of our country, one that Mulroney clearly wants to be so much a part of and never will be, and one which guys like Chretien, Martin and Harper are so removed from as to make any meaningful comparison ludicrous (although one does have to give Chretien due credit for the Clarity Act). They're much smaller men.

[August1991]

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.

Divisive? How could we have lower energy prices in Canada without being divisive? And Nicky, this NEP only applied to oil prices - not electricity prices.

As John Lennon, a friend of Trudeau, said: Imagine!

---

Is this an old, boring debate. Yes, it is. But Canada has a history - and you ignore it at your peril. Why? Because someone smarter will know this history and beat you because of their knowledge.

Nicky, you ignore history/gossip at your peril.

[Evening Star]

And it can hardly be blamed solely on Trudeau that Quebec didn't sign, that was much Levesque's own petulance coming out.

Yeah, I always wonder when people bring this up. What does anyone think that Rene Levesque might have agreed to?

[Keepitsimple]

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.

Bang on Michael!

[Wild Bill]

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?

Once again August, I think you are showing the introverted perspective of a person living in Quebec. You see, Meech failed because TROC did not trust it!

I agree it would have done wonderful things for Quebec. The problem was, Mulroney had overplayed his hand. To English Canadians, he had given the perception of making different promises in French than in English. To TROC, the deal seemed unfair to other provinces (and AGAIN, Quebecers virtually always think of the rest of Canada as one big Anglais bloc, rather than 10 other and very different separate provinces!) and perhaps even sneaky and underhanded!

Because of these factors, I fail to see how Mulroney can escape being called a VERY divisive PM!

[P. McGee]

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 never hear too much about Harper being born and raised in Toronto though. I guess he did his penance by living in Alberta for a long enough period.

[madmax]

Because of these factors, I fail to see how Mulroney can escape being called a VERY divisive PM!

WOW!!!

Thanks for this one Wild Bill. Completely overlooked, and for me almost completely forgotten.

I think u found a winner in truth.

Trudeau was flamboyant and arrogant, and Harper is Ignorant and Rude. Both were/are able to polarize but Definitely different in their purposes for doing so.

However Mulroney may have been the PM who most suceeded in being divisive while being the smoozhing hand shaking compromiser in the back rooms.

When people actually had to make a choice, the choice was clear and the division existed and was identified within the referendum.

The fact is TROC did reject meech lake. And the observation of Anglo Canada is bang on....

In a rush on this post... its a bit of a hack.

In a nutshell.

Wild Bill, its great to have your perspective and insight on this forum.

[ToadBrother]

Once again August, I think you are showing the introverted perspective of a person living in Quebec. You see, Meech failed because TROC did not trust it!

I agree it would have done wonderful things for Quebec. The problem was, Mulroney had overplayed his hand. To English Canadians, he had given the perception of making different promises in French than in English. To TROC, the deal seemed unfair to other provinces (and AGAIN, Quebecers virtually always think of the rest of Canada as one big Anglais bloc, rather than 10 other and very different separate provinces!) and perhaps even sneaky and underhanded!

Because of these factors, I fail to see how Mulroney can escape being called a VERY divisive PM!

I agree that the failure was Mulroney's but in a slightly different direction. By the time he tried selling constitutional change, he'd used up much of his political capital. It wasn't just Meech Lake or Charlottetown that sunk him, but his general persona and the public perception of him. He was a fool to even try, though I think at least in this case, his goals were noble.

There's a lot to dislike about Mulroney, and certainly his final failures lead to the rebirth of the Separatists and the birth of the Bloc. But he was a victim of that too, and on a personal level.

[Alta4ever]

He was a fool to even try, though I think at least in this case, his goals were noble.

All of our leaders have had noble goals including Trudeau, it is whether or not we agree with what they wanted to do or did. That is the nicest thing I will ever say about him.

[The_Squid]

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."

Nonsense.... there are many reasons why the Cons were elected. First, and probably foremost, was the sponsorship scandal. The gun registry.... Alberta doesn't vote for anyone else....

To say that Westerners even give a crap about Toronto enough to make it an election issue is just plain silly.

[P. McGee]

Nonsense.... there are many reasons why the Cons were elected. First, and probably foremost, was the sponsorship scandal. The gun registry.... Alberta doesn't vote for anyone else....

To say that Westerners even give a crap about Toronto enough to make it an election issue is just plain silly.

I agree for the most part, although Toronto is a convenient scapegoat. I just think it's funny for the Conservatives to point fingers at a "Toronto elite" when Harper himself has a very similar background to the other leaders in question.

[nicky10013]

Nonsense.... there are many reasons why the Cons were elected. First, and probably foremost, was the sponsorship scandal. The gun registry.... Alberta doesn't vote for anyone else....

To say that Westerners even give a crap about Toronto enough to make it an election issue is just plain silly.

What's nonsense is this post. Toronto isn't the only meaningful word in the term Toronto Elites. It's also the elites. It's both people bristle against in a context of a rural/urban divide. That aside, why do you think people in Alberta vote for no one else? Who is using the divisive tone in regards to the gun registry? Certainly not anyone supporting it. They simply say register your guns, we think it makes people safer. Besides, if you register your car, how hard is it to register a gun? It's been the Conservative party who have been lying through their teeth about Toronto Elites who want to come and steal your guns (a la John Baird and Breitkreuz). Not true in the least.

[Alta4ever]

.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Evening Star]

Baird's talk about urban 'Toronto elites' never even makes sense to me, coming from someone who grew up in and represents a well-off suburb of Ottawa. He's not exactly a down home country boy himself.

[ToadBrother]

All of our leaders have had noble goals including Trudeau, it is whether or not we agree with what they wanted to do or did. That is the nicest thing I will ever say about him.

I can't argue with patriation, it was a noble goal. How we got the constitution is certainly a muddier story, but you can't blame Trudeau alone for that.

[P. McGee]

To me it almost seems like part of the myth of Stephen Harper is that he has Albertan, 'country' roots, although he seems to have spent a lot of his time since moving to Alberta in urban centers as well. I wonder how many Canadians are actually under the impression he was born there?

Having been born in Toronto myself, I can relate to people seeing it as an aggravating and sometimes nasty place to spend time around. It also seems to be true that many people who live in cities are almost completely unaware of what life is like in nearby rural areas, having spent little time in them. I suspect that a lot of things that get on my nerves in Toronto would not be absent if I moved to Calgary or Vancouver though. Canada vs Toronto is a smokescreen for rural vs urban in this case, leaving out places like Calgary or Edmonton where everyone is presumably brimming with rural 'street cred' even though they live in a city.

[Evening Star]

I wonder how many Canadians are actually under the impression he was born there?

I was until now! (Never thought he was rural but I really thought he'd grown up in Calgary.)

[Wild Bill]

WOW!!!

Thanks for this one Wild Bill. Completely overlooked, and for me almost completely forgotten.

I think u found a winner in truth.

Trudeau was flamboyant and arrogant, and Harper is Ignorant and Rude. Both were/are able to polarize but Definitely different in their purposes for doing so.

However Mulroney may have been the PM who most suceeded in being divisive while being the smoozhing hand shaking compromiser in the back rooms.

When people actually had to make a choice, the choice was clear and the division existed and was identified within the referendum.

The fact is TROC did reject meech lake. And the observation of Anglo Canada is bang on....

In a rush on this post... its a bit of a hack.

In a nutshell.

Wild Bill, its great to have your perspective and insight on this forum.

Thanks, Max! It's nice to have someone not dismiss what I personally witnessed as anecdotal and imaginary.

[capricorn]

Thanks, Max! It's nice to have someone not dismiss what I personally witnessed as anecdotal and imaginary.

Count me in along with Max.

[ButterFlyStorms]

Harper by far. Trudeau was PM through many years of difficult times much more difficult then anything Harper will likely face. Harper is really just an American patsy. Harper has even bragged about watching American news rather than Canadian news. Harper is like a dog on a leash beside his American master.

[ToadBrother]

Harper by far. Trudeau was PM through many years of difficult times much more difficult then anything Harper will likely face. Harper is really just an American patsy. Harper has even bragged about watching American news rather than Canadian news. Harper is like a dog on a leash beside his American master.

Are you trying out a new line of Hate America-Hate Harper slogans for t-shirts, signs and greeting cards?

[wyly]

The gun registry.... Alberta doesn't vote for anyone else....

half of Alberta's conservative support comes from racists, uneducated hillbillies, and religious nuts, the other half are in the oil business and are only worried about their jobs...assure the latter their oil jobs/income are is and conservative support will fall away... Edited September 26, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I was neutral towards PET in the beginning, he added some flare to our politics which was good, I can't say I cared for him at the end...I disliked Mulroney but I absolutely despise Harper...

Pms I like Lester B...Jean C. was funny...Joe C could have been good but he bumbled...too bad about Martin we'll never know...

[Alta4ever]

half of Alberta's conservative support comes from racists, uneducated hillbillies, and religious nuts, the other half are in the oil business and are only worried about their jobs...assure the latter their oil jobs/income are is and conservative support will fall away...

Weren't you taught that stereotyping was wrong?

[Jack Weber]

Weren't you taught that stereotyping was wrong?

Hillbilly quip aside,where is he wrong about the province being run by the oil industry?