The race to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party and prime minister, and the election sure to follow, are in many ways reminiscent of 1984.
Not the chillingly prescient George Orwell novel of that name - although it does seem like the world is quickly sliding toward Orwellian dystopia too - but the 1984 contest to replace the first Prime Minister Trudeau.
Unlike the son, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was still venerated by most members of the party as they gathered to see him off. Many wept openly as he delivered his final remarks, after being feted by Paul Anka’s customized rendition of “My Way.” Trudeau’s way had, only four years earlier, included “rising from the political dead” – he had announced his resignation in 1979 and candidates were lining up to replace him – to lead the Liberals back to power in 1980 after the Joe Clark PC’s botched their short-lived minority government. That “second coming” of Pierre Trudeau further galvanized his image and made the prospect of replacing him even more daunting.
There were seven people, all men, in the running; six were Liberal MPs, most were members of Trudeau’s cabinet, including Jean Chretien. But the frontrunner was former finance minister John Turner, who had quit the cabinet in 1975 over suspected policy differences with Trudeau. Nine years out of politics allowed Turner to present himself as “an outsider,” a fiscally responsible agent of change, despite his earlier allegiance to Trudeau. He was also presented as the best alternative to Brian Mulroney, whose PC party had a double-digit lead in the polls, close to 40 points at one point, after Mulroney won the leadership a year earlier. Turner’s campaign buttons proclaimed, “Hello John, bye bye Mulroney!”
I was there, in the sweaty Ottawa Convention Centre at Landsdowne Park in mid-June 1984, when Canada’s “natural governing party” chose Turner, in a second ballot victory over Jean Chretien, who was, in the words of party president Iona Campagnolo, “second on the ballot, but first in our hearts.” The Liberals had voted, their heads over their hearts, for the John Turner they remembered from a decade earlier, the dashing, blue-eyed Liberal prince who had once, literally, danced with the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret.
Within a few days, the Liberal Party under Turner vaulted to first place in public opinion polls, after years of trailing the PCs. Turner quickly called an election, hoping to capitalize on his popularity. But the campaign that followed revealed Turner not to be the man Canadians remembered. He was “rusty.” His staccato speaking style seemed hesitant and nervous, he appeared uncomfortable in his outdated suits, and he proved unable to separate himself from the Trudeau legacy when he made good on a raft of patronage appointments at Trudeau’s behest. He later claimed he had no choice. But during a memorable leader’s debate, Brian Mulroney landed a knockout blow when he countered “you had a option sir, you could have said I’m not going to do it…” It was game over, the end of Turner’s credibility as an agent of change.
Mulroney went on to win the largest number of seats in Canadian history. Turner became an honourable opposition leader and ultimately a statesman, without ever being elected prime minister in his own right.
Fast forward 41 years. The Liberals are again choosing from among a field of Trudeau ministers, a former backbench MP and a self-portrayed “outsider,” a politically untested partisan, who claims to be a fiscally responsible agent of change. Mark Carney is also portrayed as the best alternative to the person leading the main opposition party, which has been enjoying a hefty lead in public opinion surveys. Some polls have the Liberals under Carney, leading the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre, who has his own issues with “likeability.” What his supporters see as blunt, conservative common sense, his critics decry as Trumpy snarkiness. Back in 1984, Brian Mulroney was seen by some as “too slick” and too “republican.”
History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it does so often enough that it’s usually worth considering the past when anticipating the future.
Carney is likely to win the leadership, and he’s likely to call a quick election. He may even start the campaign with a lead in public opinion polls. But the outcome of the election will likely be determined by the engagements between Carney and Poilievre and the contrasts drawn: who do Canadians see as the best person to lead Canada, through the valley of the shadow of Trump, with clarity, strength and patriotism, who emerges as the clearest, comfortable alternative to the current prime minister, his policies and his style?
In 2025, Canadians again seem likely to confide in the leader and the party found to offer the most credible, clear and comfortable change.
