On the whole, was Trudeau, who died today, a good or a bad Prime Minister for Canada?
I’ll weigh in if this topic interests…
As an American I’ll weigh in. Who cares?
Marc
[hijack] I’ve had discussions with my Canadian roommates about how little Americans know or care about Canada. To most of us Canada is just a big place up north that we’ll never visit. Yes, I recognize that Canada is an important trading partner and yes I do happen to like them. But I just never think about them because they never give me grief. [/hijack]
Marc
i believe he was the best known pm, in the states. 'course that could have been due to his cousin putting him in his comic strip.
This should really be in the pit. I will not even pretend to be rational about this and will simply spew forth.
When Trudeau took power in '68, the rest of the century was “going to be Canada’s”. Centennial spirit and optimism abounded. Great things were going to happen. Trudeau’s megalomania caused all this to never be realized.
P.E.T.'s agenda was the enshrinement of his vision of Canada. In order to assuage the inchoate separatists, and in order to strengthen the federal government (in an inverse ratio to that of the provinces), he helped enact a series of laws and programs which have led to mediocrity - cultural protectionism, stifling of innovation, entrenchment of federal bureaucracy, jingoistic nationalist self-satisfaction, etc, etc.
Thirty years later, the Trudeau legacy is one of failed potential.
On the whole, I’d say he was bad.
I don’t know how he was as a Prime Minister, but his Doonesbury cartoon could be pretty biting at times.
Oh, yes. The patriation of the constitution, the charter of rights, official bilingualism, decriminalization of homosexuality - quel horreur.
On the other hand, we have the NEP which almost broke up Canada, his riding through Western Canada in a train giving people the finger (literally), unification of the military (which was a huge disaster), his hanging out with his best buddy Fidel Castro, his wife dating the Stones and flashing her nether regions daily at Studio 54…
Actually, I rather liked his wife and her antics. Can you imagine the scandal in the U.S. if Hillary showed up on a groupie bus with the Stones, then being photographed pantiless in a short skirt, intentionally flashing the paparazzi? It’d be a hoot.
And he did add a bit of color and flash to what was up until then a very stodgy and drab country. But aside from his charisma, his actual policies were mostly destructive.
Trudeau was probably the second-greatest Prime Minister in Canadian history, after Sir John A. And yet I disagreed with a lot of his policies - heck, I’m a strong economic conservative.
The question you have to ask yourself is; how good a PM was Trudeau as opposed to, say, the ordinary Joe? What were the results of having Trudeau as PM as opposed to what we otherwise would have expected?
The single major shot against Trudeau was that he ran up big deficits. That said, there are legitimate reasons to assert that anyone, in the economic climate of the time, would have racked up big deficits. Trudeau was immediately followed by an allegedly conservative PM who racked up even higher deficits. NO Western country adopted policies that were much different from Trudeau’s during his time in office, and most Western countries were to the left of him.
Canada’s economic growth under Trudeau was, contrary to popular belief, fairly good as compared with worlds trends. We were not stifling our growth while the rest of the world was running away with all the money.
All in all, despite big deficits, Trudeau did succeed in doing what probably nobody else at the time could have done; he held the country together in the face of what could have been nation-destroying forces. The rise of separatism - first violent, and then weaselly - would have beaten most PMs. You think Robert Stanfield or Joe Clark could have taken on Rene Levesque mano-y-mano twice and come out on top? It is to laugh. Trudeau faced them down three times and came out on top. Separatism was as dead when he left office as it has been since 1960; it was revived under Mulroney, but you can’t blame Trudeau for that.
Canada in 1967 was ill-prepared for the storm it was facing. A Canada without official bilingualism today absolutely would not be one country; it’s inconceivable to think of any level of Quebecois federalit support without that.
Sam StoneThe unification of the military, for whatever bummer it might have been, has had no significant impact on the health of Canada as a whole; the military is pretty small, and 60,000 guys split into “commands” isn’t going to be much different than 60,000 guys split into “army, navy, and air force.” The fact that it might have been a “disaster” for the military - and it wasn’t, but that’s neither here nor there - hasn’t really hurt Canada on the whole in any way. The military’s problems go way beyond Pierre Trudeau.
Trudeau’s wife acting like a nut didn’t hurt the country. Even his thing for Fidel Castro hasn’t hurt the country. In fact, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, it might end up helping us if we get the jump on investment opportunities. The only thing on your list that hurt the country was the NEP, and frankly I’m not sure that doing nothing wouldn’t have hurt the country, too. There are things even Prime Ministers cannot help. But I’ll grant that it was a major error.
All in all, I can’t think of a better PM, at least in modern times. Destructive? I don’t think so. ithout many of those policies I sincerely doubt we’d have a country today.
As an American, I don’t know too much about Trudeau’s impact on Canada’s domestic affairs, however, my biggest beef with the guy was his overtures to castro. He was instrumental in allowing canadian companies to set up shop in Cuba. This may have been good or bad for the Cuban people, butit DID serve to prop up the awful dictator Castro.
Canadians should know that Cuba functions mostly as a big legal brothel for European tourists-girls as young as 12 are allowed to prostitute themslves, for the enjoyment of wealthy europeans.
Not something to be proud about.
Well, then again, neither is the US being in bed with China (or Burma, or Indonesia, or any of a number of countries noted for their human rights abuses) anything to be proud of.
He had a promising start. Canada’s hasn’t exactly reached his vision of a just, compassionate, and tolerant society, multicultural and bilingual, but he did give us something to aim for. A Canadian answer to the Glory of Britain and the American Dream.
Or maybe he articulated something that was already there. As a gay man I’m indebted to him for making homosexuality legal. As a working class person, I’m glad he strengthened social programs – I have less to fear. And he gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But. But I have trouble giving a passing grade to anyone who’d deprive a city of its civil rights and send in tanks, even to catch terrorists. I’m of course describing the invoking of the War Measures Act. It’s tempting to say, “But that was necessary,” but too many horrors are justified by brute necessity, and I’m sure there could have been other solutions, if anyone had taken the time to think about them.
My vote goes for best Canadian Prime Minister goes to Wilfred Laurier, with an honourable mention to Lester B. Pearson. I haven’t decided if I’d offer Trudeau the bronze.
I think Trudeau’s saving grace was the way he handled the separatists; I am thinking specifically of the FLQ crisis in 1970. In essence, his hard-line approach showed Canadians (and the world) that the federal government would not stand by while a civil war was waged in Quebec. Whether or not this made up for the National Energy Program of the late 1970s I don’t know, but for me this is what made him a good PM.
I don’t think this question can be adequately answered at this point in time. Perhaps there will be an answer in a hundred years or so, when the question can be examined in the context of history.
The problem with answering the question now is that memories are still too fresh. Some of us remember the FLQ Crisis of 1970, and the invoking of the War Measures Act (essentially, martial law and the suspension of civil liberties) in Montreal at that time. Many more of us remember such policies as 6-and-5, the NEP, the patriation of the constitution, the introduction of the metric system, and the others, most of which have already been stated.
But with such fresh memories come the opinions based on one’s personal feelings: “I hated _____ [fill in the blank with your policy of choice]; therefore, Trudeau sucked.” Or, conversely, “I loved _____ [fill in the blank with your policy of choice]; therefore Trudeau was a great PM.”
No. Although I’d love to know the answer to this question today, I don’t think it will come at any point soon. History will be the judge, and the judge will take a long while to return a verdict.
I don’t agree with federalism, but have to respect the man for his convictions. I do think he isolated both the west (National Energy Program) and a sizable portion of Quebec (PQs), quite unnecessarily. What cannot be debated is that in 16 years as PM he changed the face of Canada more than anyone since Laurier, most of it for the positive. He will be missed.
http:www.angelfire.com/indie/brainingdamage
come for the fish, stay for the fun
I liked the guy. Despite his failings.
The man had class, charisma, vision and the will to back it up. Given the recent also rans in Canadian federal politics, he is (now was) head and shoulders above them all.
He put Canada on the world’s political stage and ensured it was seen in the best possible light.
He will be missed.
I went to see his coffin lying in state at Montreal’s city hall today.
As I was waiting to get in, suddenly it slammed into me: he decriminalized homosexuality.
Check that. If he hadn’t said anything, which he could very easily have done, homosexuality would be a crime and I would be a criminal.
It’s an unusual sensation to realize you owe your freedom to someone.
Had he not decriminalized homosexuality when he did it’s likely it would have happened anyway. Remember, Trudeau didn’t do that as Prime Minister; it happened when he was justice minister under Pearson, so it was the decision of the entire Liberal caucus. Lester Pearson deserves just as much credit. Trudeau was right to push it, of course, but it’s not something he did as the Big Man of Parliament Hill, a la the 1970 FLQ crisis, repatriation of the Constitution, or official bilingualism.
The truth is that had Trudeau not entered politics, we don’t even know for sure what country you’d be living in.
Well, I’m ideologically opposed to much of what Trudeau stood for, so I would tend to not like him very much at all. But this is just IMHO. However, I did like his intellect and his personality. As mistaken as many of his positions were, he gave the impression of having brains and a backbone, unlike so many politicians these days.
It would also seem, after listening to his friends and sons, that he tried to be kind to them, so the loss, in that sense is regrettable.
I do have one gripe though, and that is with the press coverage. (For you US Dopers, Trudeau’s death and the leadup to yesterday’s funeral has dominated the Canadian news for the past five days. 24 page special sections in newspapers. Hour after hour of television coverage, etc.)
My beefs, FWIW:
-
I wonder if the media’s mostly positive coverage, which may be appropriate given his death, allows Canadians to put Trudeau into proper perspective.
-
I wonder about the amount of coverage this is getting. When Diefenbaker died in 1979, IIRC, there was some coverage but the story rapidly disappeared. Also, there was about equal positive and negative reporting on him. (My mother recalls that there was also a lot less coverage of Lester Pearson’s death in 1972.)
Certainly, a Prime Minister dying should require lots of news attention, but I think Canada’s media should be careful and give each P.M. the same amount and type of news coverage in order to appear to be fair.
In the long run it won’t matter.
Have to disagree.
- You’re operating on the assumption that it’s the media’s job to provide politicians a certain level of coverage.
It obviously isn’t; it’s the media’s job to report the news, which to a large extent is based on how people care about it. Diefenbaker and Pearson were great Canadians, but let’s be honest and admit that people were a lot more interested in Pierre Trudeau and far more impacted by his death. I cannot see people lining the train route and showing up by the tens of thousands at Joe Clark’s funeral, nice man though he is.
Canadians WANTED to watch Trudeau coverage. The media gave them what they wanted.
- Trudeau was legitimately the greatest Canadian newsmaker of the post-WWII era, and the most influential Canadian of the century.
I mean, no offense to Kim Campbell, but does she really rate the same level of coverage as Pierre Trudeau? How about John Turner? C’mon; they won’t get the same level of coverage because they just weren’t as important. Like him or hate him, Trudeau was the most important Canadian, in terms of the impact he had on Canada, since Sir John A., and it’s only logical for the coverage to be heavier.
Pierre Trudeau, even his enemies agree, was a man of staggering intellect. He had endless charm, charisma and style. His passion and his vision Canadians have not seen the like of since.
It was over 20 years ago that as Prime Minister of this country he said,“The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” In America in the year 2000 they have a ‘don’t ask policy’.
Whether you loved or hated his domestic politics, he was respected on the international stage and represented us in a way we could admire.
He started a North South dialog when the rest of the world could not see the need. He led us to multiculturism and bilingualism.
This isn’t a melting pot it’s more of a tossed salad, full of tasty little bits.
He married a coed, gave us a charter of rights and survived giving someone the finger publicly. Also fathered a child at 71.
Canadians were justly proud to have elected this smart ass 4 times.
Love him or hate him, he did what was asked, he led us through the haze to ideas and concepts we could but barely fathom. His vision was for us all, that much was clear.
If you live in Canada today you need only look around to see that you enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, at least so says the UN’s latest ratings. That is, in large part, due to the vision of the leader of this country for those 16 yrs. The reputation Canada enjoys today in the world was largely shaped by this man.
I miss him already.
He could pull off wearing a cape, beret and red rose in his lapel, I’m sorry, but you gotta love that!