Tweet
Or this was posted two days early...
The man who could be King
With a disloyal party, apathetic voters and a famous dog, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion seems like a match for, hmmm – Canada's longest-serving PM?
Mar 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Jack MacLeod
Special to the Star
Who does Stéphane Dion remind you of? Oddly enough, he reminds me of Canada's most successful politician of the 20th century, our longest serving prime minister, Mackenzie King.
Oh, I know, it is presently fashionable to point out Dion's apparent shortcomings. Mackenzie King, through most of the 1920s, even after he became prime minister, also heard repeated demands that he be replaced. But to say that Dion is a liability to his party's electoral prospects is wrong and short-sighted.
The question should be: Compared to what? If the Liberal leader lacks dazzling charisma, so too does Harper, who has all the charm and warmth of a forensic accountant. I find Dion's obvious depth of character and diffident manner engaging.
Some comparisons and contrasts between King and Dion may be instructive. Both are examples of intellectuals in politics. Each holds an earned doctorate in the social sciences, King from Harvard, Dion from Paris.
Neither man has been adept in a second language. Dion is not yet assured in English, while King's French was extremely limited, almost non-existent, forcing him to rely heavily on a Québécois lieutenant such as Ernest Lapointe.
Dion seems very much his own man, leaning on no one particular colleague while steadily expanding his knowledge of Anglo Canada and of English.
Polls show that Dion is not wildly popular in his home province. Still, as an election nears, historical voting patterns suggest Québécois usually favour francophone confreres in office in Ottawa.
But compared with Mackenzie King, Dion has personal advantages at the polls that make him seem easily electable. Recall how difficult it was for King to find or hold a seat in the House, even as prime minister. His first riding was in Ontario, Waterloo North, in 1908, but he was defeated there in 1911 and in 1917.
In 1919, as party leader, a seat was found for him in P.E.I. He shifted to York North, Ont., in 1921 but suffered defeat again in the 1926 election, and a seat had to be "arranged" in (no kidding) Prince Albert, Sask. Small wonder there were frequent rumblings in the party about replacing him. By comparison with King, Dion may be Mr. Congeniality.
Mackenzie King held office for 22 years in spite of being humourless, a lifelong bachelor, and a dry, prolix speaker.
Dion has none of these handicaps, nor has he ever been regarded as evasive or deceitful, as King often was. Since the 1950s, a persistent (and probably apocryphal) anecdote has King's official biographer McGregor Dawson intending to write a two-volume work. Dawson was said to have asked his U of T colleague Donald Creighton what title he might choose. "You called your biography Macdonald: The Young Politician and Macdonald: The Old Chieftain. Do you have a suggestion?"
"Well, McGregor," snorted Creighton, "I suppose you could call them King: The Young Son of a ***** and King: The Old Son of a *****." Even diehard Liberals used to chuckle at that story.
People who know Dion (as I do not), including some MPs and senior civil servants, all attest that in committees and as a cabinet minister, he proved a quick study, smart, brisk, decisive. It is notable that Liberal delegates to the leadership convention originally gave him little or no chance of winning, but as the process unfolded and they came to know him better, his reputation grew until he slipped up the middle to victory. That may illustrate what one of my friends calls LHP: Long Haul Potential. He wears well.
Bear in mind the Liberal party has a history of stable leadership. For example, from 1887 to 1948, while the Tories shuffled through 11 different leaders, the Grits had precisely two: Laurier and King.
Remember also that when Laurier was appointed party head, he was generally thought to be a weak stopgap, but he persisted, and nine years later (1896) was elected prime minister; he held office for 15 uninterrupted years. Dion, despite mutterings in the short term, should feel his position is fairly secure.
It has often been said that the Liberals exhibit arrogance as a "governing party" and that Dion lacks this assertiveness. Possibly he is just naturally modest and does not bluster. However, any leader with Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae at his side will find that his party has no shortage of arrogance on offer.
But there is one more major reason to believe that Dion may expect a political longevity similar to Mackenzie King's: the McLuhan factor. While King campaigned mostly on radio, obviously elections now are won or lost on TV, where Marshall McLuhan argues that "cool" candidates resonate more and last longer than "hot" ones. On my TV screen, Stephen Harper appears hard-edged, brittle, intense – that is, decidedly hot. Dion is certainly not glib or flashy, but more low-key, considered, ductile, may I say "sophisticated" than Harper, and often more restrained. His style may have a little more in common with the cool Barack Obama than with the hectoring Hillary Clinton. If the camera accepts and appreciates him over the long run, so, I believe, will a majority of voters.
If I'm right, Dion will have a strong and extended political life. You could bet on it – and remember that you read it here first.
Jack McLeod is an emeritus professor, political science, University of Toronto. His novel Uproar will be published this fall by The Porcupine's Quill.
With a disloyal party, apathetic voters and a famous dog, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion seems like a match for, hmmm – Canada's longest-serving PM?
Mar 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Jack MacLeod
Special to the Star
Who does Stéphane Dion remind you of? Oddly enough, he reminds me of Canada's most successful politician of the 20th century, our longest serving prime minister, Mackenzie King.
Oh, I know, it is presently fashionable to point out Dion's apparent shortcomings. Mackenzie King, through most of the 1920s, even after he became prime minister, also heard repeated demands that he be replaced. But to say that Dion is a liability to his party's electoral prospects is wrong and short-sighted.
The question should be: Compared to what? If the Liberal leader lacks dazzling charisma, so too does Harper, who has all the charm and warmth of a forensic accountant. I find Dion's obvious depth of character and diffident manner engaging.
Some comparisons and contrasts between King and Dion may be instructive. Both are examples of intellectuals in politics. Each holds an earned doctorate in the social sciences, King from Harvard, Dion from Paris.
Neither man has been adept in a second language. Dion is not yet assured in English, while King's French was extremely limited, almost non-existent, forcing him to rely heavily on a Québécois lieutenant such as Ernest Lapointe.
Dion seems very much his own man, leaning on no one particular colleague while steadily expanding his knowledge of Anglo Canada and of English.
Polls show that Dion is not wildly popular in his home province. Still, as an election nears, historical voting patterns suggest Québécois usually favour francophone confreres in office in Ottawa.
But compared with Mackenzie King, Dion has personal advantages at the polls that make him seem easily electable. Recall how difficult it was for King to find or hold a seat in the House, even as prime minister. His first riding was in Ontario, Waterloo North, in 1908, but he was defeated there in 1911 and in 1917.
In 1919, as party leader, a seat was found for him in P.E.I. He shifted to York North, Ont., in 1921 but suffered defeat again in the 1926 election, and a seat had to be "arranged" in (no kidding) Prince Albert, Sask. Small wonder there were frequent rumblings in the party about replacing him. By comparison with King, Dion may be Mr. Congeniality.
Mackenzie King held office for 22 years in spite of being humourless, a lifelong bachelor, and a dry, prolix speaker.
Dion has none of these handicaps, nor has he ever been regarded as evasive or deceitful, as King often was. Since the 1950s, a persistent (and probably apocryphal) anecdote has King's official biographer McGregor Dawson intending to write a two-volume work. Dawson was said to have asked his U of T colleague Donald Creighton what title he might choose. "You called your biography Macdonald: The Young Politician and Macdonald: The Old Chieftain. Do you have a suggestion?"
"Well, McGregor," snorted Creighton, "I suppose you could call them King: The Young Son of a ***** and King: The Old Son of a *****." Even diehard Liberals used to chuckle at that story.
People who know Dion (as I do not), including some MPs and senior civil servants, all attest that in committees and as a cabinet minister, he proved a quick study, smart, brisk, decisive. It is notable that Liberal delegates to the leadership convention originally gave him little or no chance of winning, but as the process unfolded and they came to know him better, his reputation grew until he slipped up the middle to victory. That may illustrate what one of my friends calls LHP: Long Haul Potential. He wears well.
Bear in mind the Liberal party has a history of stable leadership. For example, from 1887 to 1948, while the Tories shuffled through 11 different leaders, the Grits had precisely two: Laurier and King.
Remember also that when Laurier was appointed party head, he was generally thought to be a weak stopgap, but he persisted, and nine years later (1896) was elected prime minister; he held office for 15 uninterrupted years. Dion, despite mutterings in the short term, should feel his position is fairly secure.
It has often been said that the Liberals exhibit arrogance as a "governing party" and that Dion lacks this assertiveness. Possibly he is just naturally modest and does not bluster. However, any leader with Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae at his side will find that his party has no shortage of arrogance on offer.
But there is one more major reason to believe that Dion may expect a political longevity similar to Mackenzie King's: the McLuhan factor. While King campaigned mostly on radio, obviously elections now are won or lost on TV, where Marshall McLuhan argues that "cool" candidates resonate more and last longer than "hot" ones. On my TV screen, Stephen Harper appears hard-edged, brittle, intense – that is, decidedly hot. Dion is certainly not glib or flashy, but more low-key, considered, ductile, may I say "sophisticated" than Harper, and often more restrained. His style may have a little more in common with the cool Barack Obama than with the hectoring Hillary Clinton. If the camera accepts and appreciates him over the long run, so, I believe, will a majority of voters.
If I'm right, Dion will have a strong and extended political life. You could bet on it – and remember that you read it here first.
Jack McLeod is an emeritus professor, political science, University of Toronto. His novel Uproar will be published this fall by The Porcupine's Quill.
It did run in The Star Asher.
Comment