Trudeau, Visionairy or Mad Social Engineer?

My last post got me to thinking this morning. I do my thinking in the morning usually, once the fog clears. In the "Last Post", pun fully intended, I touched on what it was that once made the Liberal Party attractive to so many Canadians and this morning I thought that might be a subject worth pursuing.

I am beginning to think that much of their success in recent decades comes from an aura associated with the Party, not so much one of natural governing party, but one that began during the Trudeau years. A certain magic if you will, where love him or hate him, Trudeau defined the Liberal Party as a Party of the People. A Party that associated itself with new trends and mindsets, and above all else, a Party that was progressive and on the side of the People. The Street People.

If one is going to discuss the merits of Trudeau's years, or the perceived successes and failures, this could be a lengthy discussion. Particularly if any of the Conservative supporters were to show up. Hindsight of course being as it is, allows for a much clearer picture than looking ahead to the year of the Ox. Many of the programs implemented during Trudeau's years in government, both the Pearson years and his own governments, have become pillars in what we now view as Canadian Society. Still, depending on political allegiance, many love to pick and howl about what they percieve as bad, while at the same time not giving a moments thought to how PO'ed they would be if any of the entrenched programs that came from that time were eliminated. Kind of a short view of things really.

Moving on from thoughts of official bilingualism and NEP and back to my main point, the aura. Trudeau was seen by many as a champion of the little people, and not a representative of big corporations and old world power. Certainly, he had to deal with those aspects too, but managed that and brought forward many forward thinking programs at the same time. Costly yes, but forward thinking just the same. One also has to consider that everything begins somewhere, and unless it remains under the stewardship of the same people, it will change and evolve. As did both major considerations above. It is up to subsequent generations to determine what becomes of the original ideas and programs. Even in cases such as the NEP, remnants remain. So does the concept and the knowledge that it can be done.

Contrast all of this with the new guy, Mr. Nowhere Man. Think Beatles song. Even the bright minds of the Liberal blog world have come to see it as it is. Either accept this guy who keeps contradicting himself when he does speak, or stand apart in a second sphere of liberalism. Looks to me like a lot have chosen to go that way, and a lot more are sitting on the fence playing in both worlds so as to be sure they are not out of the loop at the end of it all. Those are the politicos whose skin can be shed quickly as necessary.

Mr. Nowhere Man seems conflicted on just about everything as in his quest to not take positions that may stick to him in the future as some of his past positions have, he comes across as indecisive by design. Guns or Roses? At least with Harper, we know it's Guns, he has made that clear. But he's not so bright. Right?

As long as Mr. Iggnatieff and organizers play peek a boo with this, Canadians wait for the real Mr. Iggnatieff to please stand up. I say who needs it? Play the game if you wish, but some of us can see through it. Pick a persona, take a stand, stand up and be counted. As it is, you are a long way away from the aura. Trudeau would likely disapprove too.

I'm not going to run on endlessly about this, but I wonder about placating oneself with the thought of changing generic soda pop A for generic soda pop B, and how is it exactly that one gets their passions all in a whirl over such thoughts? And the Great Canadian Society awaits the winner by default. Continuing on the path of being Nowhere Man, brings thoughts of another Trudeau era politician, Bob Stanfield. There are similarities and differences. The greatest similarity is that neither could be perceived to have the fire in their bellies. The differences were background and that Stanfield actually had positions, and made them clear for people to understand.

To bring this mornings musings to a conclusion, I will offer this for your consideration. Ringo Starr; It Don't Come Easy.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m5H-6fOc3HE&feature=related