Diefenbaker = Trudeau Jnr: Bomarc

[August1991]

Everyone is looking for a similar scandal/imbroglio/affair to understand this one.

IMHO, Diefenbaker in January 1963 faced a similar situation as Trudeau Jnr faces now in Spring 2019 - with a few minor differences.

In addition, Pearson's response offers some advice to Scheer.

****

Harkness resigned first then Hees and Sévigny - after saying they supported their PM. All resigned on a point of "principle".

Pearson (take note Scheer) did not advocate putting nuclear weapons in Canada; he advocated respecting our international agreements. (Pickergill's autobiography is a delight to read.) IOW Scheer, make no statement on SNC-Lavalin - as opposition leader, that's not your job. Merely say that Canada must respect the rule of law.

At the time, Diefenbaker was a charismatic leader, big ego who had die-hard supporters (like Trudeau Jnr).

They both faced/face opponents who were remnants of perceived corrupt/entitled regimes: Pearson in the case of Diefenbaker, Scheer in the case of Trudeau Jnr. (Or rather, Pearson after St-Laurent and Scheer after Harper.)

Differences?

Diefenbaker in January 1963 was in a minority situation. Trudeau Jnr has a majority but faces an election in October 2019.  So, not really a difference

After the Cuba Missile Crisis of October 1962, Pearson/Diefenbaker debated Canada/US/NORAD relations. Not really a difference.

Now, SNC-Lavalin donated 10x more money to the federal Liberals than to the Conservatives of Harper.  To my knowledge, SNC Lavalin gave nothing to Layton and the NDP.  If there is a difference, it is this. In the case of Diefenbaker in 1962, no money was involved - to my knowledge.

****

Prediction:

As in 1963, this will lead to a series of minority governments: die hard supporters of Trudeau Jnr fighting Scheer, with the NDP/Bloc/Green dividing parliament.

Then again, if Trudeau Jnr resigns - well, what if George Hees had become leader in 1962?   

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by August1991

[cannuck]

HUGE difference in circumstances.   I remember this well, because my Father was a lead instructor in the 1st Surface-to-surface Missile Battery, derived from 1 light ac-ac (anti-aircraft).   1SSM was setting up to use Honest John battlefield tactical weapons, and he was abruptly switching to surface-to-air (i.e. Bomarc and IIRC Hercules) what was the nuclear version of an anti-aircraft gun with a lot bigger bang.  Even in my supposed pre-teen innocence, growing up around this stuff was very apparent to me that ANY launch was going to precipitate a LOT of damage to environments and people involved.

What is the same is Pearson - a genuine Liberal - lied about what he would do when being elected, and had gone ahead with to allow the Yanks to bring nukes onto Canadian soil.  But, it was a very different time and risk of attack from Russia was a very real concern - and that could be expected to be nuclear weapons.  Thus the DEW line, Bomarcs, 101 and 104 (I happened to be in business many years later with the RCAF acceptance test officer for the 104 programme - also the worlds's highest time 104 pilot) so have reminisced many times about same.  I think Dief was caught up in the same situation - I think in over his head.

Why there is absolutely no comparisson is that SNC pushed the Liberals through their usual lying and fabricating "laws of convenience" crap for nothing but money.  The Libs responded out of their lust for power to continue to milk the country dry for their cronies.  Greed is hardly the same kind of thing one can rationalize or excuse by contrast to leaders trying to deal with a genuine perceived threat of annihilation.

I would also argue that a minority government is in no way equivalent to a third year clear majority - they can still do all of the harm they wish with no real retribution (unless, of course, their party falls apart).

Edited March 6, 2019 by cannuck

[Dougie93]

The similarity is that all Canadian "defence" policy is wholly unserious nonsense.  Canada the Forever Colony interested only pork barrel vote buying and periodically having to appease the imperial overlords in Washington.

[August1991]

On 3/6/2019 at 9:15 AM, cannuck said:

....

What is the same is Pearson - a genuine Liberal - lied about what he would do when being elected...

....

No. In opposition, Pearson merely said that Canada should respect its international obligations.

Similarly, Scheer should say now that Canada must respect the rule of law.

[August1991]

From the Bomarc story, there are two minor anecdotes.

1. Trudeau Snr almost became a candidate in 1963 but because of Pearson's "unprincipled" position, chose not to run.

2. Pierre Sévigny, a decent man who lost a leg in a war abroad, chose to resign. Later, the federal Liberals involved him in a scandal.

====

Right or wrong, I see parallels between the situation of our current PM and our PM in 1962.

Both have big egos. Both are charismatic. Both have die-hard supporters. Both have recently lost ministers.

And both seem incapable of admitting fault.

 

 

  

Edited March 8, 2019 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

On 3/6/2019 at 9:15 AM, cannuck said:

 The Libs responded out of their lust for power to continue to milk the country dry for their cronies.  Greed is hardly the same kind of thing one can rationalize or excuse by contrast to leaders trying to deal with a genuine perceived threat of annihilation. 

Your analysis is good, but you lose a good part of your audience when you try to impugn motives.  It's not whether you are right or wrong, but it doesn't mix well with the high quality dry and objective analysis in the rest of the post.

I'm hoping that this results in a minority government and some changing of the guards.  People need to imagine that we are in a new time and we need leaders with new ways of speaking and new ideas.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

 And both seem incapable of admitting fault.

Bingo !

How does being an unapologetic egoist mesh with Trudeau's feminine-friendly persona ?  Is someone going to bring up his non-apology apology for groping ?  Ever ?  No ?  Why not ?

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your analysis is good, but you lose a good part of your audience when you try to impugn motives.  It's not whether you are right or wrong, but it doesn't mix well with the high quality dry and objective analysis in the rest of the post.

I'm hoping that this results in a minority government and some changing of the guards.  People need to imagine that we are in a new time and we need leaders with new ways of speaking and new ideas.

Need I remind you this is a political forum, not a history class?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Need I remind you this is a political forum, not a history class?

What does that have to do with my comment ?

[Queenmandy85]

The difference Deifenbaker is that he stood on principle. He refused to let Kennedy dictate Canadian foreign policy and stood up for keeping American nuclear weapons out of Canada. As a result, the American CIA interfered in the 1963 election to get their boy, Pearson into power. Trudeau Jr. is standing on a cynical ploy to get votes. 

You are right about one thing; principled Conservatives were die hard Diefenbaker loyalists and we still are.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[August1991]

On 3/8/2019 at 1:55 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The difference Deifenbaker is that he stood on principle. He refused to let Kennedy dictate Canadian foreign policy and stood up for keeping American nuclear weapons out of Canada. As a result, the American CIA interfered in the 1963 election to get their boy, Pearson into power. Trudeau Jr. is standing on a cynical ploy to get votes. 

You are right about one thing; principled Conservatives were die hard Diefenbaker loyalists and we still are.

And Pearson stood on principle too: respect for our international agreements (NATO, NORAD).

=====

Similarly, Trudeau Jnr is also standing on principle (employees should not suffer a corporation's illegality.)

As I say, Scheer should do as Pearson in 1962: respect our international agreements/respect the rule of law.

Edited March 10, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

For older Anglos, note what she said about Diefenbaker, and Pearson:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1809599217

Barbara Frum (the CBC, As It Happens) has a reputation for being a good journalist. In fact, IMHO in this interview, Frum was awful.

So many questions, of an intelligent/wise woman, left unasked.

===

This interview occurred in 1974.

Munsinger was born in East Prussia in 1929 - she lived through the war.

Frum was born in 1937 in upper New York State - she moved to Canada.

Edited March 10, 2019 by August1991

[cannuck]

On 3/8/2019 at 9:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

What does that have to do with my comment ?

It's politics - the question is WHY would someone do what Trudeau (and many others) are doing?   The former occupation of the Prime Mistake was to make believe things, and teach others to make believe - and the consequences of his behaviour were essentially zero.   The occupation of JWR was a lawyer (who one could argue was to 50% of the time on average  be a liar), an experienced community leader and a judge - all with VERY significant consequences to telling or knowing the law and the truth.  Their past very much defines their ability and discipline in telling the truth and understanding what the law is, what it means and what is stands for (please forgive the dangling participle).