Trudeau’s problem: far too much moralizing

It would perhaps be an understatement to say that the alleged Justin Trudeau groping incident has highlighted the dangers of building a political brand based on excessive moralizing.

For that is the real lesson behind this mini-scandal. What should anger everyone — regardless of political affiliation — is the cynical and domineering weaponization of morality by the Trudeau government. It is a type of political warfare which, until now, the federal Liberals seemed to have perfected like no other party.

Contrary to those who focus on the individual victims of the alleged groping incident (whether they think it is the alleged groper or the person who says she was groped), the real victims of this political strategy are average Canadians who care about the state of political discourse in this country and don’t wish it to become the sort of polarized brawling over values we see south of the border. The weaponization of morality — be it of the Liberal/ liberal or Conservative/conservative variety — is a weapon like any other: It should be used sparingly, and only by someone who understands the awesome damage it can inflict. The fact that there is so much public debate over an 18-year-old, recently rediscovered incident between Trudeau and a female reporter suggests he didn’t understand that the weapon he aimed at others was actually loaded.

To some extent, every politician uses morality as a wedge. After all, politics is (or should be) about leadership, and effective leaders convince followers of a course of action or world view that they might not otherwise subscribe to. In this regard, Trudeau and the Liberals should be applauded for bringing issues of gender to the forefront of public debate, both in Canada and abroad. Where the danger lies is in the way they have appropriated the discussion, defined its boundaries, and fostered a classic “us-versusthem” climate in the bargain. You are not a feminist unless you are a Trudeau feminist.

From a politico-strategic tactic, this approach is limited, as it can inevitably lead to charges of hypocrisy, since trying to own an idea is a bit like trying to own the wind. From the perspective of political discourse, it’s even more serious: It strangles debate, heightens partisanship, and divides more than it unites.

There is a pervasive element of this leadership style that even many Liberals find distasteful: the prime minister’s willingness to leverage issues of personal conscience to achieve political ends. What else explains the summer jobs grant situation, which requires groups to sign an attestation supporting abortion rights? Or forcing all members of the Liberal caucus to embrace unrestricted abortion as well? Or preventing Tory MP Rachael Harder, whose views on abortion differ from those of the prime minister, from serving as chair of the House’s status of women committee? Or lecturing Trudeau’s global counterparts on the need to be more progressive? Or taking every opportunity to remind us that survivors must always be believed, despite governing a country that is based on a legal system that values due process above all else?

Trudeau’s approach to these issues has had almost nothing to do with developing effective policy or legislation, but rather with the intention of demarcating a clear moral boundary and leveraging it to further his own political brand. It is perhaps the least “progressive” way of approaching public policy — at least if one’s intention is to stimulate healthy debate and see sustainable progress made. This type of political manoeuvring has the terrible effect of turning public morality into a battleground, and any battleground — political or otherwise — has little room for losers.

In a wiser era, it was often said that politics is the art of compromise. In the current political era, that compromise has given way to a preference for moral bludgeoning, a trend which has, in Canada at least, been led in large part by a man who should instead be focused on building bridges. Reactions to the alleged groping incident (including the inadequate reaction from Trudeau himself ) proves that we are now leaping between various stages of moral warfare. A lasting and sustainable peace would be preferable.