| Politically speaking the past year ended pretty much in character, with the federal Liberal party running around attempting to douse the flames of its latest scandal. As a late Christmas present to the opposition, the RCMP had announced that it was investigating allegations that some as yet unspecified individual in the government may have leaked advance notice of Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s proposed changes to the taxation of income trusts.
Goodale himself was quick to rebuff Opposition calls for his resignation, pointing out that RCMP had emphasized there was no evidence of wrongdoing or illegal activity on his part. Prime Minister Paul Martin was equally prompt to stand by the man who holds the job he himself had handled with some distinction under the reign of Jean Chrétien.
But still, but still… there was a sense of "here we go again" in much of the media coverage of this latest incident. After all, Justice John Gomery had only just been voted newsmaker of the year by Time magazine for his role in overseeing the investigation into the Chrétien-regime sponsorship. And it was the release of Gomery’s report, of course, that more or less had triggered the present election barely a year after the last one.
Before that, there had been lesser scandals, such as Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew’s spending $10,000 to take his chauffeur with him on trips to Europe and South America in 2000 and 2001, despite the fact that his driving services were never required. And let’s not forget former cabinet minister David Dingwall’s insistence that he was entitled to a severance package even though he had "voluntarily" resigned his position as head of the Canadian Mint – having also dinged the Canadian public for $1.29 worth of chewing gum along the way.
And then there was the self-detonating decision by Mike Klander, executive vice-president of the federal Liberal party's Ontario wing, to liken NDP candidate Olivia Chow to a chow chow dog on his campaign blog. Never mind the fact that he also called Jack Layton, Chow’s husband and federal NDP leader, "an asshole... for no reason other than it makes me feel good to say it… and because he is."
There’s more, much more, but the point is made. How corrupt, how bereft of humility is the Liberal party of Canada? Well, how long is a piece of string? You choose. But if, as seems likely, Martin ends up by leading his team to a second consecutive minority government, he won’t – or, at least, shouldn’t – have to look far for who to blame.
Yet anyone who’s genuinely outraged by this latest manifestation of Liberal corruption (and of the arrogance that underlines it) should consider two questions. First, has Canadian politics ever been very different? Was there really ever a "golden era" of political altruism and selfless devotion to the public good? And second, is there any reason to believe that a change in the current government – i.e. the election of another party – would substantially improve matters today?
The answer to both questions is "no," I suspect. Indeed, if history is any guide, they’re really the same question, only differently phrased.
Consider recent history, for example. The past four decades of Canadian political life have been dominated by three prime ministers: Pierre Trudeau (1968-79/1980-84); Brian Mulroney (1984-93); and Jean Chrétien (1993-2003). Three very different individuals with very different visions of the nation, yet each in his own way captivated the attention and support of Canadians sufficiently to secure majority governments on more than one occasion (Trudeau in 1968, 1974 and 1984; Mulroney in 1984 and 1988; Chrétien in 1993, 1997 and 2000). Each man achieved this not inconsiderable defeat despite – or maybe even because of – the fact that each frequently dismissed both political opponents and public opinion with an almost imperial degree of arrogance.
This is hardly a novel observation. In 1999, author Will Ferguson divided the entire parade of Canadian historical figures into two categories: bastards and boneheads. "Bastards succeed," he wrote. "They are ruthless. They are active." On the other hand, "Boneheads just screw up." Whatever we might make of Ferguson’s sophomoric vision of the world, it’s notable at least that he ranked both Trudeau and Chrétien as unqualified bastards, while honouring Mulroney with a mongrel mixture of both qualities.
Contrast this, however, with those recent prime ministers who all but slipped under the radar of public consciousness: Joe Clark (1979, for three months); John Turner (1984, for three months); and Kim Campbell (1993, for five months). According to Ferguson, each was an unmitigated bonehead. More tellingly, each failed to publicly portray that sense of entitlement to office that so marked the reigns of Messrs. Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien.
And it’s precisely that sense of entitlement, I suspect, that in the end appeals to Canadian voters. Of course Brian Mulroney was a complete bastard. Anyone who needs Peter C. Newman’s recent tell-all book to inform them of that was either unborn or comatose during the 1980s. And the same may be said – equally, if not for always the same reasons – of Trudeau and Chrétien. Scandal is not and never has been a sufficient reason not to vote for someone; acting like or appearing to be a loser – and sorry, Stephen Harper, this does mean you – is.
In fact, scandal and arrogance form the very bedrock of Canadian politics. It goes right back to John A. Macdonald – uniformly anointed as the "greatest ever prime minister" by pretty much every poll that’s ever been taken – and the so-called "Pacific scandal" of 1873, in which the Conservative party accepted huge amounts of campaign money from entrepreneur Hugh Allan in return for awarding him the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. It cost Macdonald the election the following year, but in 1878 he was back, trouncing the Liberals in the third of his record six majority victories.
And so, as the present election draws to an end, it may yet turn out that the Liberals’ long record of scandals may have little effect on the vote. "There are often times," Macdonald once said, "when I do things that are against my conscience, and which I know are wrong; but if I do not make certain allowances for the weakness of human nature, my party would turn me out of power, and those who took my place would manage things worse than I."
On January 23, we’ll see if this lesson still holds true. |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.