Yesterday's Men: Chrétien, Parizeau, Duceppe, Larose

[August1991]

While watching the French debate, a thought crossed my mind that Duceppe looked like "Mr. Yesterday". In an exchange about the constitution, I half expected Ignatieff to say that to him. (BTW, here's my OP of the thread about that debate in which the only thing I vaguely got right was that if the NDP had a leader who could speak better French, they would compete well with the Bloc. It turns out that Layton's structure/vocabulary cause him no major harm.)

And then I heard Chretien give his little speech recently:

“What is important is, we built a country together,” Chrétien said. “I see you, you’ve come from all over the world to share our values of being a Canadian.

“But if you’re not careful, you might lose them one by one,” said Chrétien, who bounded onto the stage to shake hands with the assembled local Liberal candidates.

When he first entered politics in 1963, there was no medicare, no Canada Pension Plan, no Canadian flag, no national anthem and the Constitution was a British law, he told the crowd. And at that time there were no guarantees of individual rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he added.

“It is the Liberal party that did all that for Canadians,” he said to wide applause.

Toronto Star

Maybe it was merely Chrétien's voice that reminded me, once again, of the phrase "Mr. Yesterday". But his claims of a Liberal federal Canada were the striking point.

Jacques Parizeau was more direct:

“The choice is between parties that always think of Canada first and foremost, and a party that only thinks about Quebec,” Mr. Duceppe said at a stop just south of Montreal. “When we ask [federalist leaders] what is their country, they answer Canada. For us, our real country, the one in our hearts and our guts, is Quebec.”

...

“I'm sending out a message to the supporters of the Parti Québécois, to unite and mobilize with all of your energy to support the Bloc in this last week,” Mr. Parizeau said, explaining the sovereignty movement is in play. “It will take the time that it takes, but it will be done,” he said, expressing his regrets at his failure to win the 1995 referendum.

...

“The three [federal leaders] play on the same team, which is Canada. Jack Layton's on the left wing, Michael Ignatieff plays centre and Stephen Harper is on the right,” Mr. Duceppe said. “They've been on the power play for too long, it’s time to play at even strength, nation to nation.”

G&M

These two guys have been playing this game for decades and decades. Chretien claims that "le Canada est le plus parfait pays au monde" and Parizeau says "On veut un pays".

They are like the old couple in the Edward Albee play that keep having the same argument over and over again while a younger couple listens and can't understand the bickering.

Then Gérald Larose got involved:

«S'il (Layton) n'a pas répondu (à la demande du Bloc de clarifier sa position constitutionnelle), ce sera un imposteur et peut-être, je dirais, plus crapuleux, parce qu'il se drape du drapeau du progrès social, a dit Gérald Larose. À mon avis, Jack a des responsabilités plus grandes que les autres, qui ont eu une longue vie pour nous prouver qu'ils sont des crosseurs professionnels. Jack, qui se promène avec sa canne et qui est plutôt sympathique, on va s'attendre à ce qu'il soit vrai.»

La Presse

IMHO, Larose is no different than Chretien or Parizeau. These are people who are simply incapable of speaking another language. They are stuck in the past or stuck with a single form of language. They are like an old couple who bicker and cannot change the subject or even their method of communication.

I am sometimes tempted to think that they`ve enjoyed a wonderful free-ride on this debate but I suspect rather that they sincerely and genuinely believe what they say.

And finally, William Johnson has weighed in with a column about Jack Layton:

From the time he won the NDP leadership in 2003, Jack Layton manoeuvred to build his party in Quebec from the ground up by courting the nationalist clientele of the Bloc Québécois. His strategy followed that of Brian Mulroney when the Progressive Conservative party was defunct in la belle province. The Tory leader built support in Quebec by recruiting separatists like Marcel Masse and Lucien Bouchard, then launching nationalist messages like treating the 1982 patriation of the Constitution as an infamy.

Ottawa Citizen

Here again, Johnson presents the world as nationalists vs. federalists.

----

I am not saying that these issues have been resolved or that they are unimportant. I don't disagree that the debate about Quebec within Canada is fundamental in basic human terms. (BTW, I tend to agree with Camil Laurin that a society's sovereignty is important in making an individual sovereign.)

But this current debate in Quebec is sterile and leads nowhere. Neither side has really won this civil war. Maybe a future generation will resolve it, or maybe it`s just an ongoing debate that evolves in each generation.

To hear/read Duceppe, Chretien, Parizeau, Larose and Johnson, I was reminded how much these men used to know how to touch certain sensitive cords - and how their words now are almost pathetic.

They are like an old couple bickering at the Christmas dinner table and raising once again the ire of their tired adult children who now, apparently, have the wisdom to ignore them.

Edited April 29, 2011 by August1991

[Harry]

And after Monday Harper and Ignatieff as well.

[August1991]

And after Monday Harper and Ignatieff as well.

Be careful what you wish for since you may just get it.

[punked]

Be careful what you wish for since you may just get it.

How about you help us and give us your vote to teach us our lesson.

[jbg]

And after Monday Harper and Ignatieff as well.

Are you a one-trick pony NDP cheerleader? Get out the pom-poms.

[August1991]

How about you help us and give us your vote to teach us our lesson.

Punked, of this life, I know no more than you do.

But maybe I can recognize people who are one-trick ponys. Chantal Hebert is another "Yesterday's Woman":

To follow the 2011 Liberal election campaign has been like watching a plane crash in slow motion.

Even from the sidelines, it has become a stomach-churning experience.

Toronto Star

----

These people have made a career/livelihood of playing on/analyzing the Quebec National Question.

But now, since the ADQ and Harper and the NDP in Quebec, the story has changed.

[Benz]

But now, since the ADQ and Harper and the NDP in Quebec, the story has changed.

Nothing changed. Nothing at all. And it is exactly why people are voting anything.

If you don't accomplish what you are up to, then leave the place for someone else. They won't be better than what you pretend to eventually do, but maybe they will do something that you are not doing and perhaps something will happen for once.

It's my interpretation of the reasoning behind those sudden and fragile supports to ADQ, NDP and such.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Benz

[August1991]

Benz, tu as sensiblement bien raison.

Depressing. But gladly, I think you're wrong.

----

You say that Nothing changed?

Benz, Quebec society is pregnant for change.

Edited May 1, 2011 by August1991