Canada is in a MAGA world of trouble.
The United States of America, the country’s “dearest” and “closest” friend, has imposed severe tariffs on the majority of goods imported into the country’s “dearest” and “closest” friend, causing a crippling trade war.
The impulsive man-child who treats America’s signature and most lucrative bilateral relationship like a yo-yo, is, of course, mercurial, Make-America-Great-Again, baseball-cap-wearing US President Donald Trump.
Threats and uncertainty are the defining features of Trump’s belligerent foreign policy which fatally undercuts the jejune suggestion that he, unlike his trigger-happy predecessors, is the “peace now” candidate.
The fact that Canada is being led by what amounts to a caretaker government with a lame-duck prime minister at the soon-to-be-expired helm adds to the palpable anxiety that hovers over it like a heavy shroud.
A typically isolated nation of more than 40 million people might find themselves in that situation as a proud, China-shattering bully tries to act out south of the 49th parallel.
But true to self-absorbed history and haughty form, the governing Liberal Party is consumed by a leadership race that will pick a successor to the ditched-in-the-scrap-yard-like-a-spent-used-car – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The Liberals are looking for a political saviour in all the wrong places as the fast-paced election for Trudeau’s replacement takes shape, at least in my opinion.
I try to avoid making broad generalizations about a large, multifaceted place in general.
Despite this, I believe it is fair to say that many Canadians are already concerned about the future because of the outrageously high cost of housing and food as well as the general perception that the relationship between citizens and their governments has waned.
Politicians from the far-off political spectrum in Canada have reportedly used generation after generation to win elections with the often disingenuous promise to improve “ordinary Canadians’ lives.
If the results of recent polls are accurate, the yapping, stunt-addicted Conservative Party leader, Pierre Poilievre, is on the cusp of becoming prime minister after spending almost 10 years in purgatory – the opposition benches.
Meanwhile, the flip head of the left-wing New Democratic Party, Jagmeet Singh, has failed to resonate with Canadians yearning for tangible solutions to urgent problems.
As a result, the flailing socialists remain stuck, unable to escape the glib, self-satisfying delusion that they represent the “conscience” of Parliament.
Desperate-to-cling-to-position-and-prestige Liberals have turned their doleful eyes to two leading candidates – who, in spirit and purpose, are a facsimile of one another – to try to prevent what is destined to be a drubbing in the next federal election that could take place as early as March.
Cocky Liberals have always believed that power is an entitlement rather than a privilege, and that they have the almost divine right to lead Canada.
As such, the pursuit of power, not the common good, has been the Liberal Party’s raison d’etre.
Predictably, the two candidates for the leadership position, Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney, are establishment-hugging reactionaries who are committed to defending the status quo rather than seriously challenging it.
Anyone who doesn’t share myopic partisans will understand that neither Freeland nor Carney have a “retail” politics that combine seriousness and accessibility.
Frankly, Freeland and Carney are as charismatic as a pair of mannequins.
Their stilted, bromide-filled performances on the abbreviated campaign trail, and, in Carney’s curious case, in an inane “conversation” with comedian Jon Stewart are embarrassing proof of that.
And both have a certain degree of training and temperament, making them technocrats who are now focused on distancing themselves from the conventional chattering classes in order to avoid boredom.
The coming federal election will, like every election before it, tilt on two words: Change and hope.
As I have , explained , in an earlier column, governments have natural life expectancies. Then, the appetite for a “new, fresh beginning” becomes inevitable despite the futile attempts to resist this wave-like impulse.
That is the hard-to-overcome dilemma that Freeland and Carney confront.
They will traffic in the fanciful idea that they are “change agents” who can offer, in words and deeds, discouraged Canadians renewed hope.
Freeland, in particular, must make a herculean descent to buck history and distance herself from the loser and liability she once served with such fawning deference in a variety of senior cabinet positions, including as finance and foreign affairs minister, given her long, established links to a tired, performative Liberal government that Canadians have, on the whole, soured on.
In his press conference announcing his resignation in early January, Trudeau made a calculated point by reminding Canadians that Freeland was in fact a Robin of his Batman.
“Chrystia has been by my side for close to 10 years now”, Trudeau , said. She has participated in virtually every aspect of our relationship as a government and political party over the past ten years.
Ouch.
For his self-serving part, Carney, the ex-Governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, has reportedly surrounded himself with the same handlers who shepherded Trudeau Jr into the prime minister’s office.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
If he prevails, Carney will not only be crowned leader of the Liberal Party but prime minister, as well.
Canada’s 24th prime minister will then have to deal with a prickly quandary that is sure to undermine his legitimacy: Carney does not hold a seat in Parliament.
Poilievre will pounce and blatantly declare that Carney lacks the authority granted to him by Canadians through the ballot box to govern even for a short time. Poilievre will pounce and shout, justifiably.
All the while, Trump looms and crows that he will compel Canada by economic force to capitulate not only to his immediate demands but, ultimately, to become America’s 51st state.
Amid this costly brawl, Liberals appear determined, yet again, to choose gentility over brawn.
They ought to be searching, instead, for a brass-knuckled protégé of the gritty, street-smart former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who, in the run-up to the calamitous Iraq war, wisely rebuffed joining the invading US-led “coalition” of the short-sighted.
They might perform the happy deed.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply