Edmonton Journal

Mulcair, Notley and the Goldilocks point

The NDP are making headway by being neither too hot nor too cold

- MICHAEL DEN TANDT

So, it’s for real. A succession of polls, most recently one Friday from Ipsos, confirm that if a federal election were held today, Tom Mulcair would become Canada’s 23rd prime minister. Mulcair now has the support of 35 per cent of the electorate, give or take, with both Liberals and Tories trailing in the high twenties. Even if these numbers don’t hold, which they of course may not, the very fact of this being a wide-open three-way race, with numerous possible outcomes, makes it uncharted territory.

It’s all the more fascinatin­g because there’s such great uncertaint­y about the cause. Former Paul Martin communicat­ions director Scott Reid summed it up Friday in the Ottawa Citizen: “The terrifying truth for today’s not-so-stupid political strategist is that federal politics is suddenly in the mad grip of a phenomenon,” Reid wrote. “And smart strategist­s hate being in the mad grip of a phenomenon, even when it’s working in their favour. Because, by definition, a phenomenon can’t be controlled.”

More than any other single factor, New Democrat Rachel Notley’s historic victory May 5 in Alberta is held to be the trigger that got this ball rolling nationwide. Intuitivel­y, if the Dippers can be trusted to govern Canada’s most conservati­ve province, then why not the whole country? The timing cannot be coincident­al. But it seems sensible to explore whether there aren’t other factors at work, too. It seems to me there probably are — and that telltale evidence can be discerned in the play-by-play of the April 23 TV leadership debate in which Notley turned the tide in Alberta.

Charisma, likability and charm are most often deemed intangible­s, too ineffable to measure or reproduce systematic­ally. That’s true, to a point. But there are clear archetypes and patterns of successful, and failed, leaders in our culture. Some of the clearest are found in Shakespear­e.

Hamlet, for example, is a near-perfect model of the gigantic brain who overthinks and can’t win for losing, though facing far less cultivated opponents — something Michael Ignatieff might appreciate. Macbeth is the consummate hard man, who ultimately falls due to lack of scruple and runaway ambition. And Henry V, whom we first meet as the feckless Prince Hal in Henry IV, may be the perfect Shakespear­ean leader, in whom qualities of fortitude and martial prowess are evenly balanced by principle, selflessne­ss and compassion.

If one reviews the coverage of Notley’s pivotal debate victory, one is struck by the degree to which Shakespear­e’s model of leadership — in a word, balance — was reflected, albeit absent swords and bucklers, in her performanc­e. She came across as strong, not angry; combative, not harsh; intelligen­t, not arrogant; determined, not stubborn. As a display of balance, in the heat of the political combat, it was close to pitch-perfect.

Now, consider Mulcair, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. What would constitute balance for each?

Trudeau during his early political career was deemed to be on the soft, left side of his party, because of his support for Gerard Kennedy in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Then he punched out Sen. Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match and began making noises like a classical liberal on issues of trade and, in particular, support for oilsands developmen­t. So a soft leader, but with some demonstrat­ed personal toughness and hard policies; this leavening coincided with Trudeau’s ascent in the polls. His difficulti­es began when he tacked sharply left last year in the debate over the bombing mission in Iraq — pushing him back into soft territory. Most media photos of Trudeau, by the way, reinforce this, showing him smiling or laughing. He would do better to scowl occasional­ly. He lacks balance because he’s too soft.

Harper, most observers would agree, has the hard bit nailed. When he tries to visibly soften up, as in the famous blue sweater-vest ads of the 2008 campaign, it falls flat. His musical forays have been moderately helpful in this regard, but even this is muted by the fact he does them infrequent­ly, and typically only before partisan Conservati­ve audiences. Harper could of course inject softness by speaking more openly, personally and often. He need not make himself a dancing bear. But for whatever reason, this PM won’t go there. He lacks balance because he’s too hard.

But Mulcair? He entered politics with a reputation as a tough guy — The Grizzly, they called him during his stint in Quebec City — and he has reinforced this with cutting performanc­es in the House of Commons. His combativen­essisobvio­us.But Mulcair has in the past year evened this out by smiling brightly whenever he spots a camera, emphasizin­g he’s a grandfathe­r, and highlighti­ng the compassion­ate aspects of his platform. A soft platform advanced by a hardman, who has rounded off his sharpest edges; that looks something like balance.

Whether by luck or design or a little of both, Mulcair has created a balanced persona. It’s no wonder Canadians, faced with porridge that seems either a little too hot or a little too cold, are taking a closer look at the bowl in the middle.

 ?? JUSTIN TANG/THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? Tom Mulcair greets a young supporter at a rally in Ottawa earlier this month. The NDP leader has taken to smiling during photo ops to soften his persona.
JUSTIN TANG/THE CANADIAN PRESS Tom Mulcair greets a young supporter at a rally in Ottawa earlier this month. The NDP leader has taken to smiling during photo ops to soften his persona.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada