As I’m sure you’ve noticed, given that every major news outlet and many blogs have commented on it, Pierre Trudeau was selected as leader of the Liberal Party forty years ago and therefore became Prime Minister of Canada. Over his sixteen years in office he had successes and failures and made enemies and friends – a legacy that provides plenty of fodder for his supporters and critics. One such critic wrote this interesting piece in the National Post last week, comparing Trudeaumania with the frenzy in the US over Barack Obama. The central point of the article is that Trudeau ruined Canada and lost the identity it was building up until the 1960s by his promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and a new future that divorced itself from its past. Supposedly, Canada essentially lost its place in the world by watering down its identity through the embrace of many cultures and then alienated its strongest ally. Internally, Canada’s regional divisions were exacerbated by Trudeau’s ardent opposition to Quebec nationalism and the antipathy of his vision, including bilingualism and multiculturalism to the populist west (not to mention the National Energy Program for good measure). The author warns that the US could be risking the same road to ruin by falling under the spell of Obama.
It’s an interesting argument but I think too much power has been granted to Mr. Trudeau. On the assertion of his having heightened the division between French and English Canada the fact is Quebec nationalism had been on the rise for twenty years and had strengthened under Jean Lesage and was mobilizing under Rene Levesque and radicals such as the FLQ. Pearson had sought appeasement as would Mulroney after Trudeau, and neither worked any better than the confrontational style of Trudeau. The forces propelling and shaping Quebec nationalism were much bigger than Pierre Trudeau and, as with any fast rising, nascent social movement probably at its most potent stage in those early days. A strong, eloquent, and passionate defender of Canada was just what was needed and we could have done no better than with Pierre Trudeau.
As for the West, again laying the blame for “Western alienation” at the feet of Trudeau is to overstate his role. The Western provinces had been complaining since Sir John A. Macdonald’s National Policy of 1879. Tariffs, transportation rates, and the financial imbalances of a resource economy versus the manufacturing heartland of Ontario and Quebec had long fed Western discontent and led to the rise of reform parties such as the Social Credit and CCF. Oil changed things significantly starting in the 1950s and the tug-of-war between Ottawa and the West, particularly Alberta came to a head in the 1970s. Admittedly, Trudeau’s National Energy Program was one of his most notable missteps and undoubtedly escalated the ire of Western Canadians. But the NEP didn’t create the schism with the West; it just unfortunately gave them their most tangible item yet to voice their grievances. However the pinnacle of Western discontent had to be the rise of the Reform Party which was created not because of Pierre Trudeau but because of Brian Mulroney (who came to power with the support of the West) and his overtures to Quebec – the very opposite of Trudeau’s approach. I realize making the point that Trudeau didn’t cause Western alienation but was just one of several contributing factors is hardly a ringing endorsement, but it does support the point that Canada’s regional problems relating to the West are not solely attributable to Trudeau and his agenda.
Relations with the US were already a little bumpy when Trudeau assumed power, evidenced by Lyndon Johnson’s manhandling of Pearson after the Canadian Prime Minister voiced criticism, supported by much of the Canadian public, over the American policy in Vietnam. The rise in conservatism and the election of Nixon in the US also created a natural cleavage with the left-leaning Trudeau, though Nixon and Trudeau got along reasonably well and Trudeau was able to gain concessions from Nixon’s punitive tariff strategy of 1971. Trudeau also went easy on the US over Vietnam and was in step with Nixon in normalizing relations with China; so while Trudeau was at odds with most of American foreign policy and their rising conservatism, he did not necessarily go out of his way to antagonize them. It wasn’t until the 1980s and the election of Reagan that things took a turn for the worse, though Trudeau’s promotion of engagement and peace with the USSR and Cuba over nuclear escalation was consistent with Canadian values prior to Trudeau’s arrival. Further, Trudeau allowed cruise missile testing so things weren’t all that bad with the US – mind you Trudeau didn’t sing “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling” with Reagan, but I think we can all be thankful for that.
To label Trudeau’s legacy as a “wreckage” is to apply a one-sided view that ignores the freedoms gained and growth achieved for our nation during his leadership. Without Trudeau we may have seen a Separatist victory in the 1980 referendum, no patriation of the constitution, and no progressive policies on justice and culture that make so many Canadians proud. Further, to suggest that Barack Obama is a wreckage waiting to happen because his rhetorical style is similar to Trudeau’s is a leap of assumptive logic that fails any measure of reasonability.
It’s an interesting argument but I think too much power has been granted to Mr. Trudeau. On the assertion of his having heightened the division between French and English Canada the fact is Quebec nationalism had been on the rise for twenty years and had strengthened under Jean Lesage and was mobilizing under Rene Levesque and radicals such as the FLQ. Pearson had sought appeasement as would Mulroney after Trudeau, and neither worked any better than the confrontational style of Trudeau. The forces propelling and shaping Quebec nationalism were much bigger than Pierre Trudeau and, as with any fast rising, nascent social movement probably at its most potent stage in those early days. A strong, eloquent, and passionate defender of Canada was just what was needed and we could have done no better than with Pierre Trudeau.
As for the West, again laying the blame for “Western alienation” at the feet of Trudeau is to overstate his role. The Western provinces had been complaining since Sir John A. Macdonald’s National Policy of 1879. Tariffs, transportation rates, and the financial imbalances of a resource economy versus the manufacturing heartland of Ontario and Quebec had long fed Western discontent and led to the rise of reform parties such as the Social Credit and CCF. Oil changed things significantly starting in the 1950s and the tug-of-war between Ottawa and the West, particularly Alberta came to a head in the 1970s. Admittedly, Trudeau’s National Energy Program was one of his most notable missteps and undoubtedly escalated the ire of Western Canadians. But the NEP didn’t create the schism with the West; it just unfortunately gave them their most tangible item yet to voice their grievances. However the pinnacle of Western discontent had to be the rise of the Reform Party which was created not because of Pierre Trudeau but because of Brian Mulroney (who came to power with the support of the West) and his overtures to Quebec – the very opposite of Trudeau’s approach. I realize making the point that Trudeau didn’t cause Western alienation but was just one of several contributing factors is hardly a ringing endorsement, but it does support the point that Canada’s regional problems relating to the West are not solely attributable to Trudeau and his agenda.
Relations with the US were already a little bumpy when Trudeau assumed power, evidenced by Lyndon Johnson’s manhandling of Pearson after the Canadian Prime Minister voiced criticism, supported by much of the Canadian public, over the American policy in Vietnam. The rise in conservatism and the election of Nixon in the US also created a natural cleavage with the left-leaning Trudeau, though Nixon and Trudeau got along reasonably well and Trudeau was able to gain concessions from Nixon’s punitive tariff strategy of 1971. Trudeau also went easy on the US over Vietnam and was in step with Nixon in normalizing relations with China; so while Trudeau was at odds with most of American foreign policy and their rising conservatism, he did not necessarily go out of his way to antagonize them. It wasn’t until the 1980s and the election of Reagan that things took a turn for the worse, though Trudeau’s promotion of engagement and peace with the USSR and Cuba over nuclear escalation was consistent with Canadian values prior to Trudeau’s arrival. Further, Trudeau allowed cruise missile testing so things weren’t all that bad with the US – mind you Trudeau didn’t sing “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling” with Reagan, but I think we can all be thankful for that.
To label Trudeau’s legacy as a “wreckage” is to apply a one-sided view that ignores the freedoms gained and growth achieved for our nation during his leadership. Without Trudeau we may have seen a Separatist victory in the 1980 referendum, no patriation of the constitution, and no progressive policies on justice and culture that make so many Canadians proud. Further, to suggest that Barack Obama is a wreckage waiting to happen because his rhetorical style is similar to Trudeau’s is a leap of assumptive logic that fails any measure of reasonability.
1 comments:
Incredibly well said and articulated....outstanding words.
Jamie
Post a Comment