From the day [Pierre Trudeau] resigned in 1984 to today, the Liberal Party has never developed a new and cogent framework for what it believes in. In her book “Divided Loyalties”, Brooke Jeffrey described the turmoil within the Liberal Party from 1984. What cemented foment was the great chasm brought about by the Meech lake Accord. The two competing “visions” of Canada personified by Meech were painfully divisive for Liberals.
The same occurred during the Charlottetown Accord, and the Free Trade Agreement. Those were seminal and divisive events that cut very deep into the Liberal Party and from which the party has never recovered. Do we believe in a strong federal government as Trudeau did, or the opposite as Lester Pearson did and Stephen Harper does? What should be the role of the state in the economy? What should our foreign policy be? Our relationship to the United States? What should our posture be on energy, constitutional reform, health care, Aboriginal issues, and climate change?
I passionately believe it is that void – a vacuum in our belief system as a party – that is the heart of the matter, not leadership. Content and substance should be the dominant concern, but in the absence of both and without a firmly grounded belief system, we hang our hats on the next obvious thing – leaders. And that’s where the “Messiah complex” kicks in for some.
From Liberals don't change for the sake of it, by Daniel Veniez.
4 comments:
I totally agree. I would just add that if Meech and Charlottetown created a chasm in the LPC it completely destroyed the Progressive Party of Canada.
Hi Loraine,
I guess I should add Ignatieff's "Quebec is nation" resolution to Meech and Charlottetown, just for old times' sake.
But to your comment. The PCs were divided by the failure of Meech, whereas the Liberals were divided by its content. Had Meech passed, no Bloc. Had Meech passed, no Charlottetown and probably no Reform Party surge.
Your right but the particulars in either case are extremely different, in my view.
You are certainly right, and welcome as far as I am concerned, to add the Quebec as a nation motion to this.
Being an older person lots of people think my brain has gone to oatmeal when I insist in my claim that the Liberal Party of Canada supported both Meech and Charlottetown!
From what I recall, the PC party base was no more enamoured with the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society than were a lot of liberals. The concept was impossible to sell. The division in the liberal ranks showed more because of the notoriety of Pierre Trudeau and his powerful and well articulated opposition.
"Being an older person lots of people think my brain has gone to oatmeal when I insist in my claim that the Liberal Party of Canada supported both Meech and Charlottetown!"
I know the feeling.
You're right about the effect of Trudeau's prominence and the PC base. But the PC base had visions of electoral dominance dancing in their heads as compensation.
Here's how Trudeau described the displeasure and popular revolt around Meech:
"So today we have the legal country -- that is, a prime minister ready to trade Canada's soul for electoral victory, and ten provincial premiers all panting to increase their powers by despoiling the Canadian state, with the backing of the small fry sitting on the parliamentary Opposition benches who are terrified of incurring the disapproval of officially endorsed Quebec thinking.
"And then we have the real country -- that is, the unorganized coalition of Canadian individuals and groups scattered across the nation, for whom Canada is more than a collection of provinces to be governed through wheeling and dealing. To them, Canada is a true nation, whose ideal is compassion and justice and whose desire is to be governed democratically in freedom and equality.
"The more they have learned about what Meech Lake really means, the more indignant these people have become that their governments have signed an accord that could break up their country, weaken the Charter of 1982 and undermine shared-cost programs." (from: The Values of a Just Society)
I think that sums it up nicely.
Post a Comment