Trudeau

[SirSpanky]

Howdy. I'm relatively young, and wasn't around for the Trudeau days. I was hoping someone could tell me the general opinion of him the country held. Not something I can read in a book, but how was he regarded? Was he just a great leader; ie. do you think he could've been as effective with a different opinion on policy?

[newbie]

You'll get lots of opinions on Trudeau. I think he put Canada on the map. Folks in the west aren't fond of him and they'll give you plenty of partisan reasons. You'll hear that he was arrogant, but he stuck to his guns. Some will try to say he favoured Quebec, but he was a devoted Federalist and would not cater to the French, particularly when it came to our constitution. But I'll stop here and let the flamers take over.

[shoop]

Howdy. I'm relatively young, and wasn't around for the Trudeau days. I was hoping someone could tell me the general opinion of him the country held. Not something I can read in a book, but how was he regarded? Was he just a great leader; ie. do you think he could've been as effective with a different opinion on policy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trudeau was swept into power in 1968 because people were longing for somebody they could trust after years of not really liking Pearson or Diefenbaker.

His first majority was pretty much consumed with the October crisis.

After that he began his big push for bilingualism, one of his two real lasting legacies. Which corresponds with the basic death of the Liberal parties fortunes on the prairies for the rest of his time in active politics. He was never a true national leader again.

Which was proven with the NEP. Don't even get me started on that one.

He lost in 1979 because people weren't really happy about the way he had handled the economy - high deficits, high unemployment, high inflation.

After the loss he announced his retirement. Joe Clark bungled his parties first budget, lost a non-confidence vote and Trudeau stuck around for one more election.

Truedeau won another majority and took this as a mandate to repatriate the constitution. Hampering us with the imperfect Constitution ACt 1982. Trudeau rammed it through in a vain search for a legacy. The exclusion of Quebec from the signing of the document and the notwithstanding clause of the charter will be Trudeau's lasting legacy on this issue.

[crazymf]

You'll get lots of opinions on Trudeau. I think he put Canada on the map. Folks in the west aren't fond of him and they'll give you plenty of partisan reasons. You'll hear that he was arrogant, but he stuck to his guns. Some will try to say he favoured Quebec, but he was a devoted Federalist and would not cater to the French, particularly when it came to our constitution. But I'll stop here and let the flamers take over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He needs a disclaimer to start this thread?????

Say no more.

He was a horny old fart, banging that young b*tch. That's a whole other saga.

[Guest eureka]

Trudeau was a reasonably competent leader. More importantly, he was the right one for the times that fitted with his personality.

Regarding the repatriation of the Constitution, he did not bring back an "imperfect" Constitution. He patriated the Constitution that was in existence. The "Notwithstanding" Clause was not of his devising and very much against his wishes and beliefs. It was forced on him by Provincial Premiers who would not agree to the amending provisions without it. He should have been firmer on that.

The Patriation, itself, was a resounding achievement and accomplished what Canada had been trying to do since the Treatyof Westminster It had faltered every time over the amending principles.

The NEP was another high point of his administration though the Alberta firsters will never understand it.

[August1991]

Trudeau was more of a federalist than a democrat.

He was also an interesting person. When he appeared before the press, he always said something or did something that attracted attention in an interesting way. He had a lively mind. Politics were never boring with Trudeau and Levesque around.

I met him on a few occasions. He was not tall and I found him rather snobbish.

[Shady]

Trudeau was responsible for starting the trend of deficit spending and increased national debt.

[mirror]

Trudeau may have been physically short, but he stands tall amongst any politicians we have have had in the last 50 years in Canada. He was in a league by himself and probably was 50 years ahead of his time. For trying to make Canada more independent of the US he was labeled a commie by the establishment.

Trudeau much to his chagrin brought in the War Measures Act because a Quebec premier whimped out , and effectively crushed the FLQ. A British diplomat's life was saved in the process.

Trudeau's greatest achievement was in difusing separation in Quebec roundly thumping Levesque 60-40 in the Quebec separation refendum. Quebec at the time had English only menus in Montreal, if you wanted a decent job you had to speak English, and few French in the federal civil service. Trudeau tried to bilingualize the country but was blocked primarily by anglo bigots. When the CRTC brought the first French TV network to BC I think there was even a riot. By bringing French into the civil service and promoting French he took away the major complaints Quebecers had for separation.

Trudeau was very progressive having marched with asbestos strikers against Quebec premier Duplessis, dated very high profile women like Barbara Streisland, and probably was the most intellectual PM this country has ever had.

Other people have commented on the constitution and the NEP.

Trudeau is sorely missed by the vast majority of Canadians.

[shoop]

Regarding the repatriation of the Constitution, he did not bring back an "imperfect" Constitution. He patriated the Constitution that was in existence. The "Notwithstanding" Clause was not of his devising and very much against his wishes and beliefs. It was forced on him by Provincial Premiers who would not agree to the amending provisions without it. He should have been firmer on that.

The NEP was another high point of his administration though the Alberta firsters will never understand it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trudeau couldn't get a deal during his dying days in office without the notwithstanding clause. No deal would have been better than a bad deal in that case. (To be factually correct, the Premiers wouldn't agree to the guarantees in the Charter without the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause does not effect the amending formulas in place in either Constitution Act 1867 or 1982).

Do explain how a policy that killed the oil patch and threw thousands of Canadians out of work was a high point of Trudeau's administration.

[Argus]

Trudeau was arrogant. He was immensely arrogant. He was an intellectual, and very smooth, very well-spoken. He had the kind of charisma that Canada at that time found astonishing. Compared to the dull as dishwater politicians who had come before he was like a breath of fresh air. He was an intense personality, moreso than any politician who has followed him.

But above all he was arrogant.

He had ideas of where to take the country, but dismissed "the detail stuff". He found details boring. He liked the big picture. He would bring in a program because he thought it was a good idea, and he didn't much care what it would cost, or what negative affects it might have. Money bored him. Economics bored him. He was into social justice and advancing society.

The two lasting legacies of Trudeau are immigration and the debt. Trudeau built up a huge debt from almost nothing by instituting programs we couldn't pay for. He just borrowed for them, borrowed so much you'll be paying it off when you're old.

Trudeau's government altered the reality of immigration, which altered the face of Canada. As late as 1966 88% of immigrants to Canada were White, and virtually all non-aborigine Canadians were White and Christian. Trudeau's government not only brought in changes to the immigration act which brought in masses of no-white, non-christian immigrants but implimented "multicuturalism" which encouraged immigrants to retain their old cultures and beliefs - and not blend in and become Canadians.

This policy in particular altered Canada beyond all recognition, and continues to alter it in ways we cannot preduct.

During his last train ride across Canada his train was pelted with fruit and produce in the prairies, with stones and rocks in northern Ontario. He was despised by many, although he still had his fans.

[Toro]

Trudeau alienated the west, destroying the Liberal Party in that region of the country, and, from what I understand, his vision of Canada and Quebec's place in the country have been rejected by Quebecors.

[mirror]

--

[mirror]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Legacy

Link

[Argus]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Legacy

First: he didn't tell you to go out and grab chunks out of a book. He actually said he didn't want something from a book, he wanted real opinions.

Second, quoting large amounts of text without attribution is plagarism, and against the rules.

[Bakunin]

I thing that either you love him or hate him.

His good side can also be bad side.

Personally i think:

He wasn't a good economist thats clear, he was a left wing idealist.

He wasn't a man of compromise, he was arrogant. He had his vision of canada and completly transformed the country to fit its view, well its very nice to the one who loved his overall view but all the regions have at least 1 or more complaint about his realisation though some regions may love him more than others. Some could say he put us on the map, well he definatly drove alot of attention but i wonder if Pearson wasn't more active on the international scene ? Well both had a different way to express themselves.

Somehow, i see him has a disciple of machiavel, an excellent strategist and manipulator but far from a brilliant intellectual and idealist.

In a book he wrote, he praised himself about the tactics he used to tore down the coalition of provinces and pass his constitution in the 80's. He said he catched Lévesque with his weak point, his love of democracy...

I think it explain a bit how i see him, personally i prefer people with more judgement that can find compromise and have a rational view of the situation. Ppl less arrogant that care about what the others have to say.

[SirSpanky]

From some of theses posts he kinda sounds like Napoleon, minus the little man syndrome.

Argus;

I get from your post, you think he was a touch arrogant

So clearly he had the vision, and the balls to push it through. If he wasn't so into himself, and listened to people when they told him he couldn't do all of these things the restrictions being financial, do you think he would've been a "good" PM?

To all;

Is an intellectual PM a good thing? Personally I'd rather have a practical, intelligent, experienced, and tolerant PM. Intellectuals (with the exception of intelligent) in my experience are the polar opposites of these.

[mirror]

Who were recent intellectual prime ministers?

I think our most unpopular recent prime minister was Mulroney and I don't think it had anything to do with his being a tory.

I'd be curious to know why people think he was so unpopular.

I wonder what people's perceptions of Martin are - my impression is that he is not well liked. How is he perceived in Quebec?

[Bakunin]

I think that Paul Martin is a skilled politician and a good strategist. Not really good to improvise or to debate, he got nailed down by Duceppe last time. He was clearly an upgrade for the liberal party. Not any PM could have saved the liberal party in 2004 and not many could have saved them an election this summer.

Maybe Harper helped the liberal too !

However many people are tired of this 12-13years reign of the liberal party. They are tired of the liberal vision of the country and want some change. Its well known that the more years a party is in power, the more corrupt it become.

[Argus]

From some of theses posts he kinda sounds like Napoleon, minus the little man syndrome.

Argus;

I get from your post, you think he was a touch arrogant

So clearly he had the vision, and the balls to push it through. If he wasn't so into himself, and listened to people when they told him he couldn't do all of these things the restrictions being financial, do you think he would've been a "good" PM?

Arrogance was certainly his downfall. He said that MPs were nobodies a hundred feet from parliament hill. Well, if that was how he thought of members of parliament how do you think he thought of ordinary Canadians?

There's no doubt he was highly intelligent and highly educated, but he was doing things on a grand level with no experience in them. And while he was better at polling his cabinet, at least, than those who followed him, he ultimately thought more of his own views than anyone elses - even when they had more knowledge of the actual subject than him. Before his death he admitted that the "multicultaral" experiment had been a mistake and hadn't turned out how he had hoped. Too late came wisdom, which does not always accompany intelligence.

But that's the sort of thing you can't go back on, can't reverse. Canada is changed forever, and it remains to be seen whether we will eventually be able to accmodate all the different cultures, blend them together, and not lose our heritage and sense of what it means to be a Canadian.

Whether Trudeau's temperament could ever have accomodated fiscal restraint is debatable. Personally, I don't think so. He wasn't a man to let mere numbers stand in his way. He wanted what he wanted, and he wasn't going to have anyone say no becuase the money wasn't there.

Could Trudeau have been a "good" PM? On what yardstick? We haven't had a "good" PM in my lifetime so it's kind of hard to compare. Trudeau was as capable of corruption and dishonesty as Mulroney or Chretien. He was just generally slicker about it. He was certainly more of a leader than Chretien or Martin, though. I would say he and Mulroney rank close together. Trudeau had more education and was more intelligent. Mulroney had more real-world experience and a lot of savvy about how large organizations worked. Both of them were good, neither was great. Trudeau's lasting legacy is a multi-ethnic society where many members have nothing in common with their countrymen and enormous suspicion of them - and the debt. Mulroney's legacy is the GST and more debt. I would say neither man left the country in as good a shape as he found it - much less in an improved state.

Is an intellectual PM a good thing? Personally I'd rather have a practical, intelligent, experienced, and tolerant PM. Intellectuals (with the exception of intelligent) in my experience are the polar opposites of these.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ivory tower intellectuals, and to a certain extent that was what Trudeau was, tend to be somewhat divorced from reality. They tend to believe too move in theoretical models which look good on paper but fail in the real world.

[mirror]

I miss trudeau

Let's have your comments to offset such a huge distortion of what Trudeau did for Canada.

Sir Spanky, if you think the comments here are representative of most Canadian's viewpoint about Trudeau you will be sadly mistaken.

Basically you have heard comments from separatists and conservatives, people on the margins of Canadian society, both groups of course which were severely defeated by Trudeau and his supporters, the vast majority of Canadians.

[Argus]

I miss trudeau

Let's have your comments to offset such a huge distortion of what Trudeau did for Canada.

Sir Spanky, if you think the comments here are representative of most Canadian's viewpoint about Trudeau you will be sadly mistaken.

Basically you have heard comments from separatists and conservatives, people on the margins of Canadian society, both groups of course which were severely defeated by Trudeau and his supporters, the vast majority of Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trudeau took his "walk in the snow" for the same reason Mulroney didn't run a final time - he knew he would be slaughtered by the angry Canadian electorate. He had zero chance of re-election, and his party would have been crushed. It would have been a humiliation and a personal repudiation of him. You know nothing about what the country was like. You weren't alive then.

Come to that, your state of awareness is not a lot better now.

[Canuck E Stan]

Trudeau was the John F Kennedy of Canada and like Kennedy the myth of his goodness is falsely perpetuated to this day. The media made him the hero of the Canadian generation of the sixties but as this generation got older, into the late seventies and early eighties they didn't care much of him any longer.

[newbie]

From some of theses posts he kinda sounds like Napoleon, minus the little man syndrome.

Argus;

I get from your post, you think he was a touch arrogant

So clearly he had the vision, and the balls to push it through. If he wasn't so into himself, and listened to people when they told him he couldn't do all of these things the restrictions being financial, do you think he would've been a "good" PM?

Arrogance was certainly his downfall. He said that MPs were nobodies a hundred feet from parliament hill. Well, if that was how he thought of members of parliament how do you think he thought of ordinary Canadians?

There's no doubt he was highly intelligent and highly educated, but he was doing things on a grand level with no experience in them. And while he was better at polling his cabinet, at least, than those who followed him, he ultimately thought more of his own views than anyone elses - even when they had more knowledge of the actual subject than him. Before his death he admitted that the "multicultaral" experiment had been a mistake and hadn't turned out how he had hoped. Too late came wisdom, which does not always accompany intelligence.

But that's the sort of thing you can't go back on, can't reverse. Canada is changed forever, and it remains to be seen whether we will eventually be able to accmodate all the different cultures, blend them together, and not lose our heritage and sense of what it means to be a Canadian.

Whether Trudeau's temperament could ever have accomodated fiscal restraint is debatable. Personally, I don't think so. He wasn't a man to let mere numbers stand in his way. He wanted what he wanted, and he wasn't going to have anyone say no becuase the money wasn't there.

Could Trudeau have been a "good" PM? On what yardstick? We haven't had a "good" PM in my lifetime so it's kind of hard to compare. Trudeau was as capable of corruption and dishonesty as Mulroney or Chretien. He was just generally slicker about it. He was certainly more of a leader than Chretien or Martin, though. I would say he and Mulroney rank close together. Trudeau had more education and was more intelligent. Mulroney had more real-world experience and a lot of savvy about how large organizations worked. Both of them were good, neither was great. Trudeau's lasting legacy is a multi-ethnic society where many members have nothing in common with their countrymen and enormous suspicion of them - and the debt. Mulroney's legacy is the GST and more debt. I would say neither man left the country in as good a shape as he found it - much less in an improved state.

Is an intellectual PM a good thing? Personally I'd rather have a practical, intelligent, experienced, and tolerant PM. Intellectuals (with the exception of intelligent) in my experience are the polar opposites of these.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ivory tower intellectuals, and to a certain extent that was what Trudeau was, tend to be somewhat divorced from reality. They tend to believe too move in theoretical models which look good on paper but fail in the real world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with most of your comments Argus, but I'd give Pierre an A for effort. At least he tried to unify the country, albeit in his own way. Yes, he was arrogant, but that's what's perceived sometimes when one tries to reach one's goal undaunted. If he did nothing he'd be perceived as indecisive or lame duck. He was a die-hard federalist, and I really believe everything he did politically had that theme in mind. I think the West needs to get over Trudeau and move on.

[Canuck E Stan]

Yes,the same way Quebec got over him.

[SirSpanky]

I miss trudeau

Let's have your comments to offset such a huge distortion of what Trudeau did for Canada.

Sir Spanky, if you think the comments here are representative of most Canadian's viewpoint about Trudeau you will be sadly mistaken.

Basically you have heard comments from separatists and conservatives, people on the margins of Canadian society, both groups of course which were severely defeated by Trudeau and his supporters, the vast majority of Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Begs the question; why don't the "vast majority of Canadians" post on these forums, which generally indicate a concerted interest in politics?