For Trudeau, so far, so good

Liberals’ heir apparent cautious but effective in the early going

Since Justin Trudeau launched his campaign for the federal Liberal leadership a month ago, his critics have complained he isn’t putting meat on the bones. If anything, the narrative of Trudeau as lightweight, he of the flowing locks, has been reinforced.

So it was intriguing to watch the reaction this week as, for the first time, the man formerly known as the dauphin wrote something about the economy. Reaction to Trudeau’s op-ed in the Toronto Star (a shorter version of which appeared in Montreal’s La Presse) ranged from bemusement to annoyance, as though he’d violated an unwritten rule that he must only say silly things.

“A little platitudinous, virtually free of dangerous specifics, but troublingly well calibrated emo-wise,” growled Macleans’ Colby Cosh on Twitter. Meantime, Trudeau’s archfoes at Sun Media, noting the op-ed was accompanied by yet another poll showing the Grits surging ahead with him as leader, began sounding the air-raid sirens. “Is Justin Trudeau Canada’s future?” Brian Lilley asked darkly.

Of course polls are worthless as predictors of future events. Trudeau has countless opportunities ahead to smash his boat on the rocks. Given his proclivity for spontaneous eruptions, he will undoubtedly seize on some of them.

What’s intriguing though, is how much he has actually revealed, while being accused of saying nothing. He’s against the route now proposed for the Northern Gateway pipeline through B.C., though not against pipelines per se; he’s against his father’s National Energy Program of the 1980s, which Albertans of a certain age still use to frighten their children; he’s against any toughening of Quebec’s controversial language law, Bill 101; and he’s against the shrinking of the middle class, which, as he wrote in the Star, “is carrying unprecedented debt levels and facing an increasingly inaccessible housing market, especially in cities like Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.”

Platitudinous? Yes. But as an indicator of a broad value set, with which Canadians can place him on the spectrum between NDP leader Tom Mulcair and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it’s effective, it seems to me. It’s also clearly designed with retail politics uppermost — a departure from much of the economic policy of the recent Liberal past. The text is vague. The subtext is precisely aimed at voters who consider themselves “middle class,” which in Canada still means just about everyone: I am neither scary left or scary right; I care about your needs

Justin Trudeau and aspirations; I intend to represent your interests. With an election still years away, that’s all Trudeau needed to do in the opening round. The polls confirm it.

That said, Trudeau faces two important and related questions, which he will need to address sooner rather than later, certainly before the leadership convention next April, or risk scuttling his claim to being a fresh voice.

First, like all Liberals who are not planning to leave politics, Trudeau now has a McGuinty problem. It’s not unique to him, but it’s particularly germane in his case because his two most senior campaign organizers, Katie Telford and Gerry Butts, were important backroom players in the Ontario McGuinty government.

Further, Telford and Mike McNair, Trudeau’s chief policy hand, worked for former federal Grit leader Stéphane Dion. McNair is credited with coauthoring Dion’s failed Green Shift carbon-tax plan, and also had a policy role in the office of Dion’s doomed successor, Michael Ignatieff.

Taken together, this begs the question of how radical Trudeau can truly be in remaking his party from scratch, as he has said he will do. As a first step, to inoculate himself from Dalton disease, he could publicly denounce the use of prorogation for partisan purposes. Such a move would put him offside of the Ontario party establishment: Arguably, if he’s starting anew, that’s where he should be.

Beyond that looms the environment and, more precisely, the politics of energy. Being generally in favour of pipelines, without specifics, and signalling one’s affection for the oilpatch, is easy. But Trudeau and senior members of his team are noted for their environmentalism. They’re generally viewed as being on the party’s left wing, which, given the close association with McGuinty’s toxic energy politics, is now a liability.

Therefore, if Trudeau wishes to persuade fiscally conservative, no-nonsense Ontarians — the key to a future Liberal comeback — that he can mind the store, he’ll need to do better than disavowing the NEP. He’ll need to articulate a plan that leaves fundamental aspects of Harper’s resource-focused economic program in place — but without seeming to do so, for fear of running afoul of the environmental lobby. For a historical model, think free trade, circa 1993.

That will be a subtle sleight of hand. If Trudeau can pull it off and avoid blowing up, he will be a force to be reckoned with in 2015. If he can’t, he’ll still likely lift his party from its current parlous state.

All told? It’s not a bad place for a young politician to be.