What gain for Liberals with Adams?
Floor-crossing not a fit with Trudeau brand
It may be, on the day that future senior Liberal minister Eve Adams fixes Medicare for a generation, or shepherds the nation through a great recession, that all those heaping incredulity and scorn on the erstwhile Conservative MP’s astonishing Pauline conversion to Liberalism will be proven wrong. That could happen. Turkeys will fly, when hurled off a cliff.
Meantime, this episode will stand as one of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s biggest errors thus far, utterly unforced, in an election pre-season that had been going rather well for him. Though probably not crippling — it may wash away eventually, particularly if Ms. Adams loses her bid for a nomination — this can do him and his party considerable harm. The reason is Mr. Trudeau’s brand, selected and honed for this moment. A putative reformer must act as a reformer would. Floor-crossing, with its inevitable freight of treachery and backroom skulduggery, does not fit the paradigm.
To begin, let’s pose this question: What does the Liberal party stand to gain?
At best, if as reported Ms. Adams seeks and wins the Grit nomination in Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s north Toronto riding, she can take down a heavyweight, possibly. Assuming the Tories continue to hold power afterward, Prime Minister Stephen Harper then appoints Jason Kenney, as he does. Life continues.
If the Liberals win power, conversely, Prime Minister Trudeau gains a telegenic young female MP, with a strong footprint in her home riding, who will be an asset to his cabinet and … oh wait, no. Ms. Adams lives in Oakville. Her municipal political background was in Mississauga and Peel Region. She will be as familiar to Eglinton-Lawrence, Mr. Oliver’s riding, as would a resident of Wawa.
Further, little in Ms. Adams’ record suggests she can be a successful MP, let alone minister. The nasty 2014 nomination fight in Oakville North — Burlington, from which she eventually stepped back, reads like a case study in things modern-day politicians should never, ever do. There were allegations of misuse of the party’s membership database, and parliamentary mailing privileges. Ms. Adams’ own people, staunch Conservatives, complained about being berated by her. There was, of course, the 2013 incident at the car wash, videotaped, which happened to be run by another loyal Conservative, who also complained.
And there’s fiancé Dimitri Soudas, one-time media handler, communications director and uber-loyalist to the PM, who lost his job as executive director of the Tory party after meddling in the Oakville fracas, violating a contractual promise. At the time he told CBC’s Evan Solomon: “I will breach any contract that says I can’t help my family.” Wonderful, that.
But wait; what about Mr. Soudas’s secret files of Tory dirty tricks? His encyclopedic knowledge of the innermost bowels of the party? His strategic savvy? Since he has pledged his unwavering support to Ms. Adams, Mr. Soudas is a Liberal, now. Is his defection alone not worth the cost?
Well, no — likely not. Dimitri Soudas is no Rasputin, nor even a Nigel Wright. He was Mr. Harper’s spokesman, for a time. Plus, if any secrets remain about the Tory strategy for 2015, it’s hard to discern where they may lie. The entire effort, essentially a smear of Mr. Trudeau, was presented by Mr. Soudas himself a year ago to the Conservative party’s national council, and soon wound up in the Toronto Star.
Which leads us back, inexorably, to risk. What does the Liberal party stand to lose by tying itself to the, er, Adams family? Mr. Trudeau is not running on experience. He acknowledges he’s no policy wonk. His forte is he’s likable.
Mr. Trudeau’s reformist lustre has already been dulled
While Harper would be Canadians’ first choice as a chief executive, Mr. Trudeau wins on amiability — and trust.
Mr. Trudeau’s reformist lustre has already been dulled by his failure to hold only open nominations. The rationale has ranged from political need — a star candidate is a star candidate, after all — to dirty tricks being pulled by some would-be nominees. Where pragmatism supersedes promise, the excuse is this: You can’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
But in Ms. Adams’ case, the evidence of past electoral shenanigans, not to mention a streak of loopy narcissism, is glaring. It ended her career in Mr. Harper’s party, not known to be overly fastidious. Ms. Adams and Mr. Soudas both have until now been known mostly for their ability to parrot PMO talking points with robotic zeal. This is the human capital of the new Liberalism?
What it looks like, quite a lot, is the old Liberalism, the old Conservatism, the old politics. As such it is nothing so much as a gift to the New Democrats and Greens — who can say, with immense relief, they were nowhere near this puddle when the others fell in.