When people say they don’t think Liberal leader Justin
Trudeau is up to the job of being PM—that he’s a lightweight or gaffe-prone,
for example—I always think about how, even if they have formed this opinion on
their own, it feeds into and is shaped by the Conservative party’s preferred
narrative. Running the country is about competency, it goes, and Stephen
Harper, whatever his other faults, is surely more competent than Justin
Trudeau.
Competency is a tough narrative to compete with, especially
considering that Canadians are a particular risk-adverse people. But you could
reframe the question, “Who would be the best prime minister?” as something
like, “Who has the best vision for the country?” Skills can be learned,
attracted, appointed, bought or rented; vision, not so much. If Justin Trudeau
were able to articulate a cohesive and attractive vision for Canada, Canadians
might have confidence that he could call in the right people to make it happen.
What does our future look like? Who are we in the world? Can we rise above pure
politics to bring the country together? Of course, you can't just ask these questions to articulate a vision, you have to provide some sort of answer to them.
That’s why the Liberal support of Bill C-51, known as the
Anti-Terrorism Act, seems particular odd and self-sabotaging. On a spectrum from
“Protect Civil Liberties” to “Maximize Security,” the bill leans toward the
latter, at least in public perception. And that direction seems to contradict
the Liberal values of a country built on trust and reason rather than fear.
Trudeau’s explanation of his support for the bill was sharply devoid of any philosophizing or even any real emotion.
“We are hopeful that the government is serious about
reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights
and our values. There are concerns with this bill, and we hear them. But we
need to do what we can to keep Canadians safe. And I believe that many of the
concerns with this bill will be addressed through Parliamentary oversight,” he
said in his February
remarks. “There are gaps in this bill, including on oversight and mandatory
reviews. And we in the Liberal Party will offer amendments to address these
gaps.”
Gaps, oversight, review, amendments? These words are
absolutely beholding to the Conservative’s competency narrative. Trudeau is
claiming the Liberals can be more fussy that the Conservatives if you give them
a chance; the devil is in the details; civil liberty is important, but then
again, so is security. His words, and even his way of defining the issue,
neither build on the established Liberal brand at its best (the country we want, not the
best political compromise we can manage) nor offer a new manifestation of
the Liberal brand under Trudeau.
There might narratives other than vision that Justin Trudeau
will use to get people to stop comparing his level-headedness to Harper’s. But Trudeau has so far failed to present one, so busy
is he following the Conservatives script.