Fathers and sons and Liberals
Ihaven’t
been paying much attention to the federal Liberal leadership campaign — if such it may be called given the absence of any real contenders — mainly because there doesn’t seem to be much to pay attention to.
The winner, at least as far as the pundits and even the candidates themselves are concerned, has already been decided. Now it’s merely a matter of finalizing the arrangements for a suitably majestic and reverential coronation, in keeping with the deference due the scion of one of the most illustrious family names in the Canadian political firmament.
Even Marc Garneau, who perhaps could be forgiven for thinking that “nothing ever beats an astronaut, ever,” had to admit that he didn’t stand a chance against an opponent boasting such an impressive pedigree.
But what I’d like to know is just exactly what is it that a guy who looks like a hockey player and whose last name is Trudeau has going for him.
What’s he got that I don’t, other than the different surname and a way more expensive hairdo?
Does the fact that he had a famous father make him any more suitable than you or I to become the next Liberal leader?
Is this accident of birth enough to set him apart from the rest of the herd, as if his parents’ combined genetic constitution was sufficient to ensure his credentials as a star forward on the Ottawa Blue Bloods and a Person of Quality.
What is it that makes Justin Trudeau himself think that he actually has something worth offering to his fellow citizens, or that he alone is qualified to provide the country with the sort of inspired leadership it so desperately needs at this crucial juncture in its history?
By way of answering my last question first, Trudeau the Younger must believe that he’s in the same league as Trudeau the Elder.
Otherwise, why would he take up the same line of work? Why indeed, you may well ask. For whatever reason, sons will often try to emulate their fathers in the hopes of proving to themselves and the rest of the world that they’re just as good as, if not better than, the old man ever was.
Sometimes they succeed, as in the case of Alexander the Great, who far exceeded the territorial ambitions of his less acquisitive father, Philip II of Macedon.
More often than not, however, the son will never quite manage to convince himself that he’s anywhere near being half the man his father was, resulting in deep-seated feelings of inadequacy which can have disastrous consequences not only for his own life, but for an entire nation. It’s the sort of thing that Freudians — if there were any left — could have a field day with.
The eventual overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the obviously inadequate 43rd president of the United States, for example, may well have been the result of his own and the public’s perception of his father, the 41st president, as being not nearly so inadequate, rather than the presence, real or imagined, of any weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi dictator may have had squirreled away out in the desert surrounding Baghdad.
What I’m saying is that in order to better understand young Justin we may have to give some thought to what motivated his autocratic sire. As the twig is bent, so too is the tree inclined. (Or should that be the other way around?)
Then again, I could be crediting the fruit of our 15th prime minister’s patrician loins with far more brains than he actually possesses. This possibility would certainly appear to be borne out by his less than stellar performance in the House of Commons, where one of his first pronouncements as the Liberal’s immigration critic had to do with the issue of female genital mutilation, of all things.
Now this is not a topic you would think would require much in the way of debate (I mean who in their right mind would come out in support of such a horrendous practice), but Trudeau managed to thoroughly confuse the issue — and the House — in what parliamentary reporters deduced was possibly a misguided attempt on his part at political correctness.
Just to refresh your memory, in a guide prepared for would-be Canadian citizens, the federal government had stated that “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence.”
Fair enough. Nobody’s going to fault them on that. Except, of course, the normally far less vociferous member for Papineau, who infamously blasted the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric” when, in his view, the words “absolutely unacceptable” should have sufficed.
He went on to explain that in an official Government of Canada publication, “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.” In other words, while we don’t support female circumcision, neither do we oppose it. (And this from someone who conceivably could end up becoming our 23rd prime minister!)
And so, to answer my own question, when you look like a hockey player and your last name is Trudeau you don’t need anything else. At least not in Canada. At least not as far as the Liberals are concerned.
It doesn’t matter how stunned you are, or how little you have to contribute to the body politic, or how abysmal your lack of talent. With a big enough ego, all you have to do is to get people to vote for you, which, when you’re the frontrunning contestant on the Gong Show which now seems to constitute Canadian politics on the national scene, isn’t nearly so hard to do as it should be.
Liberals, if such they may be called given the minimal requirements to become one, begin voting for their very own Canadian Idol on line or over the phone starting next Sunday, with the electoral process continuing unabated until April 7.
This may seem like an inordinate amount of time to reach what is essentially a forgone conclusion, but let’s not forget that in a way it’s the future of the country that’s at stake here.
It’s just too bad that the Liberal party itself hasn’t quite realized this yet. And when they finally do, it will be too late.
For them, and possibly the rest of us as well.