From Trudeau's Canada to Obama's America: An Insightful Collection of Stream of Consciousness Political Commentary Written from One Brother to Another.

By Sudha Bhagwat

Immigrants often have a perspective and an attitude unique from native born citizens, driven by an ability to compare and contrast countries, the old with the new, the past with the present. Unquestionable confirmation of that is given in the pages of From Trudeau's Canada to Obama's America, a collection of email essays written from one brother to another, reflecting an abiding devotion to each other and the countries and issues which shaped them and their family's evolution from Canadian liberals to American conservatives. Dire circumstances often hone one's judgment, as these email essays, unabashedly presented from a conservative vantage point, fully reveal. They are a tour-de-force analysis of politics, public policy and personalities oriented not only to the Right, but to anyone engaged and interested in law, public policy, politics, history, economics and a myriad of other related topics.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 12, 2013
• ISBN: 9781479746088

Sudha Bhagwat

We are first generation immigrants who arrived in Canada in 1964 with 3 suitcases, a baby, a toddler in diapers, $300 in our wallet and no job in hand. When we got our first television, a little black and white with rabbit ears, my personal interest in politics began, as we, like many other immigrants, got caught up in Trudeau-mania. Over the last 4 decades my political leanings have changed. I feel Government can be intrusive and quite often well intentioned public policies actually are destructive to society. This book of essays gives you the reason why. Sudha Bhagwat

Book preview

From Trudeau’s Canada to

Obama’s America

A Collection of Informal Email Essays on Public Policy, Personalities and Politics

Sudha Bhagwat

Copyright © 2013 by Sudha Bhagwat.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-4797-4607-1

                Ebook          978-1-4797-4608-8

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Rev. date: 08/05/2013

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris LLC

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

125418

Contents

Section I

Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Politics

1.   Pierre Trudeau—Canada’s Madison?

2.   Pierre Trudeau and Quebec

3.   Pierre Trudeau and the Canadian Constitution

4.   Pierre Trudeau—Legacy

Section II

U.S. Economics and Public Policy

5.   The Magic of Economic Growth

6.   The Laffer Curve

7.   Budget Deficits and Accumulated Debt

8.   Economic Perspectives

9.   Spending Cuts and Tax Increases

10.   Greek Debt Crisis

11.   U.S. Debt

12.   The Magic of the Market

13.   Left vs. Right—Philosophical Differences

14.   The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

15.   The Minimum Wage

16.   Commentary on Miscellaneous Public Policy Issues

17.   Wall Street

18.   Before the 2008 Financial Meltdown

19.   Derivatives

20.   Sub-Prime Mortgages

21.   Credit Default Swaps

22.   Health Care—Philosophical Considerations

23.   Health Care Before ObamaCare

24.   Health Care in Canada and U.K.

25.   Health Care—Tort Liability

26.   Health Care—Engineering vs. Science

27.   Health Care—FDA and the

Pharmaceutical Industry

28.   Health Care—Medical Research

29.   Health Care—ObamaCare

30.   Health Care—Possible Reform Ideas

Section III

Presidential Histories and Perspectives

31.   John F. Kennedy—Presidency

32.   John F. Kennedy—Legacy

33.   Lyndon Johnson—Presidency

34.   Lyndon Johnson—Legacy

35.   Richard Nixon—Early Biography

36.   Richard Nixon—1960 Election

37.   Richard Nixon 1960-1968

38.   Richard Nixon—1968 Election

39.   Vietnam (1945-1963)

40.   Vietnam 1963-1968

41.   Vietnam (1968-1975)

42.   Richard Nixon—Presidency

43.   Watergate—Burglary

44.   Watergate—Conspiracy

45.   Watergate—Repercussions

46.   Gerald Ford

47.   Jimmy Carter

48.   Ronald Reagan—Early Biography

49.   Ronald Reagan—California

50.   Ronald Reagan—1980 Election

51.   Ronald Reagan—Foreign Policy and the Cold War

52.   Ronald Reagan—Domestic Economy

53.   Ronald Reagan—Iran-Contra Affair

54.   George H.W. Bush (Bush I)

55.   George H.W. Bush (Bush I)—1992 Election

56.   Bill Clinton—Presidency

57.   Bill Clinton—Impeachment

58.   George W. Bush (Bush II)—Background

59.   George W. Bush (Bush II)—2000 Election

60.   George W. Bush (Bush II)—Popular Vote and Recount

61.   George W. Bush (Bush II)—Presidency

62.   Barack Obama—Background

63.   Barack Obama—Radicalism

64.   Barack Obama—Inexperience

65.   Barack Obama—Economic Policy

66.   Rating the Presidents

Section IV

2012 Election

67.   The Accuracy of Political Polls

68.   The Splintering of the Republican Party

69.   The Modern Democratic Constituency

70.   2012 Campaigns

71.   Mitt Romney—Background

72.   Mitt Romney—Massachusetts

73.   Mitt Romney—Campaign

74.   Paul Ryan

75.   Election Prognosis—September 2012

76.   Election Prognosis—October 2012

77.   Election Prognosis—November 2012

78.   Post Election Analysis—Electorate

79.   Post Election Analysis—Media

80.   Post Election Analysis—Campaigns

81.   2012 Election: Final Thoughts

Section V

2013 and Beyond

82.   Future of the Republican Party—Policies

83.   Future of the Republican Party—Marketing

84.   Future of the Republican Party—Tactics

85.   Economic Outlook and Challenges

86.   U.S. and the World

87.   U.S. and Radical Islam

88.   Concluding Remarks

This book is dedicated to Abhi.

Abhi, our love for you and the marvel we share at your determination, grace and good cheer through decades of struggle are beyond the boundaries to which the written or spoken word could ever reach.

Foreword

We are first generation immigrants who arrived in Canada in 1964 with three suitcases, a baby seven weeks old, a toddler in diapers, $300 in our wallet and no job in hand. Our priorities, needless to say, precluded any interest in politics. It was not until we got our first television, a little black and white with rabbit ears, that my personal interest in politics began, as we, like many other immigrants, got caught up in Trudeau-mania.

Trudeau was larger than life with his movie star looks, impressive intellect and soothing views on social justice and multiculturalism. He made a great impression on me; I was in my 20s, and, as they say, If you are not a liberal in your youth, you have no heart. I remember attempting to give my first speech in English (I had joined a local Toastmasters Club to improve my language and speaking skills) on the future of Canada as a multi-ethnic society by appropriating many of Trudeau’s words and ideas from our newspaper. Pierre Trudeau was certainly my hero at the time.

As my older son, Abhi, grew up, he too got swept up in politics. When he was 18, he volunteered in the 1979 election for the Liberal Party, the campaign in which Joe Clark became Prime Minister as leader of the Progressive Conservatives. Clark formed a weak minority government, and in less than a year after a non-confidence vote Trudeau, who was contemplating retirement, returned as Prime Minister. In our 16 year stay in Canada, with the exception of the very early years of Lester Pearson, Trudeau loomed large in our lives and our political leanings (with one exception).

My younger son, the baby, on the surface showed no interest in politics. While an excellent student, his interests seemed to be primarily in sports and his one and only outward passion was the Toronto Maple Leafs. Unbeknownst to us, he was quietly becoming a Milton Friedman disciple in his early teens, and by the time he could drive at age 16 he became the staunchest of Reaganites, a view and philosophy from which he has not deviated one iota in the ensuing three decades.

We moved to the U.S. in 1980, and Abhi was diagnosed with Chronic Progressive Multiple Sclerosis soon thereafter. Over the last three decades, his disability has advanced, and he figuratively has been entrapped in his own body, unable to do even basic daily activities by himself, as he fights a particularly debilitating form of the disease. That said, his mind, his curiosity, his interests, remain vibrant, and, as he has become more and more physically limited, his interest in politics and public policy has grown; since his contact with those who used to be close to him has waned, he has found particular solace in immersing himself in political and biographical audio books and political television.

My younger son is currently at the mercy of the U.S. justice system, and the only contact he has with his older brother is through very primitive emails. While they have been close all their lives, it is their shared interest in history and politics that is providing their current day-to-day nexus, with me as the intermediary as Abhi cannot use his hands to write or type. What typically occurs is that Abhi will pose a set of questions about Presidents, historical events, politics and public policy, to which his brother will respond.

This publication is a collection of these email essays, which touch upon a wide array of topics which I thought might be of interest not only to conservatives but to anybody interested or consumed by politics. They are stream-of-consciousness comments written from memory by someone with no access to the Internet or resource materials under the most trying of circumstances: strict limits on time, keyboards with keys and space-bars missing, no editing capabilities, etc. While somewhat unpolished for these reasons, these essays are still a tour-de-force analysis of many topics, and provide insights that I have seen in very few other places.

The political transformation of our family from Left to Right was in large part orchestrated by the baby, his views and mode of analysis reflected in these essays.

While just a small smattering of topics have been covered we hope readers will enjoy these short, simple piquant essays and perspectives, which I have edited and organized for continuity and coherence.

Sudha Bhagwat

June, 2013

Note from Abhi

Dear Readers:

With cable news networks, politics has become theater, which makes for particularly entertaining viewing for bed and home-bound people like me. My voice does not project very well these days and most people who used to be close to me do not call anymore. Political commentators and gurus have become my companions.

I can spend hours watching opinions, arguments and political ads from both sides, as well as commentators refuting each other. Their passionate arguments get me involved. Listening to them certainly eases my boredom.

It seems as if people from the major news networks (almost always liberal) and those on Fox News (tilted to conservatives) are trying hard to sway my opinion as to which party is better for the nation. To think that my vote may make a difference does give me a feeling of empowerment.

I feel that both parties have good ideas and bad ideas, all sincerely made. I have no doubt that both parties have good intentions, but sometimes the results of those intentions do more harm than good for many people.

Benefits to the disadvantaged are a good idea, but invariably they are open to abuse or are unfair. I have changed many of my views over the last few years, after watching and digesting countless hours of political commentary, and discussing politics with my brother and mother.

My brother, always my best friend and companion, is younger than me, but has been my teacher in politics and sports. I have always valued his intelligence, his knowledge and his opinions. He is separated from us at the moment, and the only way we can communicate is through emails. Since I am unable to type or write, my mother sends him questions and topics for discussion from me, the answers to which she reads to me. Given the vagaries of MS, some days are more trying than others, but receiving and reading these articles, covering a whole host of topics of my interest, is always the highlight of the day for me.

For now, given the circumstances, this is my only connection to my brother, and his emails are something I look forward to each day.

As these email essays started to accumulate, my mother and I thought it would be a good idea to publish them and share what we believe are well presented and unique historical, political and economic insights with the outside world.

With the Presidential election now behind us, we felt the time was perfect for such a project. I hope you enjoy reading these short articles as much as I did.

Abhi

June, 2013

Introduction

A whole host of historical, political, economic and public policy topics are discussed in these pages, a small window to which is as follows:

On Pierre Trudeau:

In assessing Trudeau I will say this: he was not one of Canada’s great Prime Ministers (and on economic matters and national unity he was one of the worst), but he may have been (given the Constitution and his prominence on the world stage) one of Canada’s most, if not the most, significant Prime Ministers.

On the Magic of Economic Growth:

History has shown that the greatest force for good, the greatest gains for the poor, the greatest achiever of social justice, has always been a growing economy, period. Everything from science to the arts, to the environment, to new technology, to comfort, to security, to philanthropy, flourish in an economy that’s growing, more so than any government program or any social justice policy can provide.

On The Americans with Disabilities Act:

The problem with complex legislation such as this, though, is that words are not precise; they are written by those whose interest never reaches beyond the next election; they are administered by bureaucrats whose only goal it seems is empire and turf building; and they are adjudicated by courts completely separated from the real world. It all becomes a horribly toxic mix.

On the Minimum Wage:

The Minimum Wage, one of those feel-good types of legislation, hurts the most vulnerable of lowest skilled workers it purports to help; it creates an environment for a whole host of welfare programs needed to address the negative things it brings about; and it helps create the circumstances and Black Market in which an army of illegal workers can find a home for their services.

On Economics:

There was hope for a while that the study of economics would become a true science, free from ideology and steeped in mathematics and empirical data, whereas, unfortunately, what has evolved, because everything is tied to the religion of politics, is nothing more than the most subjective of arts. Most public, government oriented economists are no more than tarot card readers today.

On Law:

To judge a man using the cultural and legal standards of one era based on what he did in a different era of norms and attitudes is Orwellian, the use of law as a weapon, not a source of justice.

On the Magic of Market Forces:

The conservative economic approach revolves around one pretty simple tenet: that for any public policy issue; for any social goal; and for any attempt to improve people’s lives, government should be the absolute last resort, not the first. With government, what you generally get are higher costs, worse service and a sclerotic mindset with no innovation.

On Public Service Unions:

Quite frankly, it is the unionization of public workers and the consequent costs (the sweetheart pay packages, benefits, pension plans, etc.), which get locked in and are very difficult to modify afterward short of bankruptcy, that are some of the driving forces in the bankruptcy of the nation at all levels of government.

On Affirmative Action:

Affirmative Action… in the redress of past wrongs and the pursuit of diversity—of appearance, not thought… is one of those, to me, morally bankrupt social initiatives employed… to punish and benefit those who had nothing to do with the wrongs being addressed, either as perpetrator or victim.

On Public Education:

We fund public education per capita to the tune of at least double of any other Western country (with easily less than half the results, for a crude efficiency score of less than a quarter), yet we are told by our political betters that each unionized teacher is a Mother Teresa with chalk, and that all the ills are for lack of money.

On Foreign Aid:

We are almost a bankrupt country, yet we spread borrowed money around the world like pixie dust, with absolutely no appreciation for the absurdity of often questionable charitable giving derived from credit.

On John F. Kennedy:

He will always be rated, no doubt, as one of the nation’s great Presidents and heroes, in large part, though, due to the way he died and the memories people have of Camelot and that time. Kennedy is frozen in our mind’s eye the way Montgomery Clift, James Dean and Princess Diana are, to name just a few, forever young, forever beautiful and forever tinged with an element of pathos.

On Lyndon Johnson:

I think Johnson may be the consequentially worst President of the 20th century.

On Richard Nixon:

He may be the most tragic figure (assassinations aside) in 20th century U.S. politics, the one most unfairly treated, the one whose enemies (mostly the press) revealed themselves to be some of the smallest, pettiest and most wicked political adversaries imaginable, and someone whom history as years pass by will judge ever-more favorably.

On Gerald Ford:

I recall a great line from All in the Family during this period from a scene in which Mike (Meathead) is hectoring Archie about Ford (perhaps dealing with the pardon of Nixon), to which Archie replies, referring to Ford, . . . leave him alone; he’s doing a hell of job for someone nobody voted for. I think that really encapsulates Ford’s Presidency to a tee.

On Jimmy Carter:

While blaming Carter for all of the violence and terrorism orchestrated by modern Iran would be unfair, there is no doubt, no exaggeration and no blurring the fact that his performance during the Iranian crisis of the late 70s, his naïve foreign policy, his inability to consider the consequences of abandoning the Shah as indiscriminately as he did and his utter weakness in dealing with the hostage situation for well over a year all allowed the theocratic revolution in Iran to fully take root, the repercussions of which have beset the West since, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

On Bill Clinton:

The bottom line in assessing Clinton’s Presidency is that he really does deserve high praise for the economy’s performance under his watch, while, in terms of foreign affairs and foreign policy, you might say that he left Dodge before the aftereffects of his benign neglect were realized.

On Negative Political Ads About Bain Capital:

Any modern, fully functioning economy maintains a healthy destructive force towards companies, jobs, ideas, etc., that no longer are applicable in terms of the optimum allocation of resources. This childish focus on the companies Bain Capital let fold or the jobs cut to save companies is beyond crude and simple; one might as well belong to the Flat Earth Society.

On Media Bias in the 2012 Election Campaigns:

This is where media bias comes into play. When Obama’s supporters run a disgusting, Orwellian lie about Romney, the mainstream media shrugs and almost playfully winks and says, Oh, that’s tough politics… if Romney can’t stand the heat, he’s unfit to be President. If, on the other hand, Romney runs a tough and true ad, the media won’t focus on the truth but rather they’ll ask whether Romney has gone too far, whether he has the temperament to be President, is he racist, or will he disavow his supporters.

On the 2012 Election Results:

In a real sense… this election… confirmed, I think, what a lot of us were uneasily feeling but never fully wishing to admit: that we have descended into a dangerous realm, a bankrupt nation unwilling or incapable of dealing with serious issues in a serious manner as we binge and wallow in an assortment of bread and circuses sideshows fostered by a corrupt elite and political class.

On the Republican Party After the Election:

I actually very strongly believe the Republican problem is one of communication and tactics, not policy or message; that’s why I think it’s so important that some silly, short-sighted conclusions drawn from this election are not foisted on the party by the party’s elite.

On Republican Tactics:

Politics is the war of ideas, and, to me, the Republicans are like the British High Command in India, sitting in a men’s club, drinking pegs of scotch in leather bound chairs in mahogany paneled rooms, going over the last battle, whereas the Democrats, with the media in their corner, are the Vietcong, disciplined guerrillas who will do anything, engage any tactic, and are ruthless in pursuing victory.

On Political Compromise:

My view is this… if you think 2+2=4, while your opponent seems to think that 2+2=6, shout it from the rooftops as to why you’re right and he’s wrong… don’t offer the fatuous notion that 2+2=5 as some sort of compromise to show your reasonableness… when it comes to economic policy, Republicans are their own worst enemies in trying to curry favor with the press.

On Radical Islam:

Radical Islam is nihilism coupled with technology, pure and simple; it has evolved to disrupt and destroy based on hate, not as some sort of statement of grievance or oppression as we are constantly lectured.

On China:

China’s miracle, in large part, is built on the one-child policy, which was buying the short-term at the expense of the long-term; it is not inconceivable that in a few short decades China could very well be in Japan’s situation of demographic suicide… in short, China could get old before it gets rich. India could very well be the tortoise to China’s hare as the budding superpower of Asia.

On Our Economic Future:

What will happen, you might ask? The answer is very simple and very predictable—a mechanism used by irresponsible and profligate governments since time immemorial to furtively extract wealth and debase commitments as a way to address and redress the fiscal calamities of their making, masking the ruin of what they have wrought in the process: Inflation.

On America as the Destination:

We were indeed very lucky, as would any child today, to be raised Canadian and living our lives as Americans. Though, given my sensibilities, growing up in a Stanfield Canada and living in a Romney America would have been better, we still won the passport sweepstakes by the privilege of growing up in Trudeau’s Canada and living in Obama’s America.

Section I

PIERRE TRUDEAU AND CANADIAN POLITICS

1

Pierre Trudeau—Canada’s Madison?

Abhi, you asked me to write about Trudeau. My knowledge of him and his policies is just based on what we all experienced growing up or living in Canada during his tenure (1968-1984, with a brief break in 1979). There is no doubt that Trudeau put Canada on the international map, not because of his policies or successes but rather because of him: he was this playboy intellectual who captivated the world media by his brilliance, his arrogance, his elitism and, finally, most importantly, because of this perception that he was the ultimate Renaissance Man above politics.

Actually, now that I think of it, the parallels between Trudeau and Obama are quite vivid: from Trudeau-mania in the late 60s to Obama-mania in 2008, to their policies (which were and are and very hard-Left), and, finally, to their economic legacies (which, I think, are and will be absolutely dreadful). Trudeau had much more of an impact on Canadian history than Obama will have on American history, but in a funny sort of way they are very similar in terms of how they arrived on the scene, their personalities and their economic agendas and legacies.

As for Trudeau’s background, all I really know is that he was from a wealthy family (from where this wealth came, I do not know). He was born around 1920, and from what I have read had a very comfortable, privileged background (with lots of travel, especially to the Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union, the implications of which we’ll discuss later). He graduated in law from the Universitié de Montréal (which is the most prestigious French school in Canada and arguably one of the top ranked French universities in the world). What’s telling, though, is that he also studied at the Sorbonne, the London School of Economics and Harvard, but he never got a degree from those other institutions; that would imply that he was somewhat indulged and spent his youth traveling the world as a student dilettante.

His career before entering politics was not that of a lawyer but rather a writer, journalist and professor. The reason I mention his family wealth and his academic aimlessness is that Trudeau never really experienced the real economy; he never really had to work and paychecks meant nothing to him, which made it all the easier for him to indulge in the classic champagne socialism of the wealthy. In fact, Trudeau was sort of drafted by Lester Pearson to enter politics, but he was a little dubious of joining the Liberal Party, because, as he put it, his sympathies were with the New Democratic Party (NDP), the socialist party.

Trudeau’s entry into politics was not of the typical variety. He didn’t move up the ranks from low level positions as most MPs do, but rather he caught Lester Pearson’s eye and basically was selected to take a safe seat in Montreal and immediately join the cabinet. As such, not only was he divorced from the real economic world (because of his family wealth), he never had to make the tough slog up the political food chain as most politicians do; he just parachuted into a top cabinet post. His later detachment from ordinary politicians and the common voter were in large part driven by the fact he lived a spoilt, gilded economic and political life, and had no sympathies for all the rest who were not so lucky, no connection whatsoever to those he governed with and those whom they governed.

Up until his entry into politics as Pearson’s protégé, Jean Chrétien and John Turner (two later Prime Ministers) were Pearson’s gentlemen-in-waiting, so Trudeau’s arrival was not met with universal welcome. Though from the same party, Trudeau, Chrétien and Turner were in a sense political rivals, which was reflected in their very uneasy relationship over the ensuing 20 years. When Pearson retired in 1968, the party leadership was somewhat open; that’s when Trudeau-mania took root. What with the media and the cultivated image that was created, Trudeau, who was a novice with little real world or political experience, became party leader and Prime Minister.

Sadly, Trudeau’s champagne socialism was very similar to Obama’s. Up through 1968, Canada was the 2nd wealthiest country in the world, and in many respects was a superior economic home than the U.S. The Canadian dollar was close to par, there was very little public debt and Canada was poised to be the economic Switzerland of the New World (dull but supremely efficient and a model for good, sound government).

From socialized medicine, to transfer payments to weak provinces, to a Marxist energy policy, to radical anti-business rhetoric, and the huge tax increases to pay for them all, Canada became a First World also-ran on Trudeau’s watch. In fact, by the mid-90s, once the full effects of 15 years of Trudeau-nomics and beyond were felt, Canada was more or less bankrupt with a credit downgrade and the risk that it could hit the point of no-return. Does this not sound familiar?

The more I think about it, Trudeau’s economic policy is the template for Obama’s; Americans should take note. In a nutshell, when Trudeau came to office, Canada was an economic role model more or less on par with the U.S. as the richest country in the world; by 1984, when he left, and in the ensuing decade, Canada probably dropped to 9th or 10th in terms of standard of living, and became maybe 80% as wealthy as the U.S. That is a huge drop.

We’ve discussed this; economic growth drives everything: from personal lifestyles to retirement opportunities, from the arts to medicine, from science to technology. For Canada to fall so dramatically as compared to the U.S. (and don’t forget that the 1970s was a horrible economic decade for the U.S.) based on his economic vision is the biggest indictment I can give as to Trudeau’s stewardship of Canada’s economy. He was an economic failure, much like history (if it were to be accurate) will judge Obama’s similar economic policies.

Ironically enough, it was Jean Chrétien (and Paul Martin as his Minister of Finance), who was replaced by Trudeau as the party’s rising star in the 1960s, who made the hard decisions (especially on spending) that brought Canada back from the brink of a possible financial crash. Chrétien fixed the damage wrought by Trudeau-nomics, but his place in Canadian history will never be that of Trudeau’s.

To be fair, Trudeau played a much bigger role in terms of Canada’s international position and he is the father of the Canadian Constitution (with many positives and a few negatives), which we’ll get to in the next few emails. I’m not a Trudeau fan on economic matters, but in terms of his position relative to other Prime Ministers, he is in the Madison category: love him or hate him, his significance is irrefutable. We’ll continue in the next email.

2

Pierre Trudeau and Quebec

Abhi, sorry for the missed article yesterday; we’ll continue with our discussion of Trudeau. I talked in generalities about his economic policy (you might call it a late 60s, 70s Canadian version of Obama-nomics), but let me touch upon a few things to expound on this. As Trudeau himself admitted, he was more sympathetic to the economic policies of the NDP: the Liberal Party was just a convenient home to give him election viability.

As with Obama, there is no point in evading the obvious: Trudeau was a socialist who gave off this soft-Left façade to maintain a certain acceptability to moderates who made up the vast majority of the electorate.

Truth be told, a lot of the grand Canadian versions of the Great Society programs were implemented by Pearson in the mid-60s, but Trudeau’s economic legacy is that he added all sorts of quasi-socialist initiatives (death by a thousand cuts you might say; for example, recall the baby bonus checks everyone got, regardless of wealth); he embarked on these huge amounts of regional transfer payments (which created this golden goose phenomenon: Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta paid huge amounts to the Federal government that were transferred to the have not provinces; it was what you might call socialism among the provinces); and, finally, his budgets included big tax increases, which were still not big enough to finance all the expenditures.

What it produced was a low growth economy all through his tenure (maybe a percentage point per year below that of the U.S. in the same period). Remember that analysis we did on the profound impact of economic growth as it compounds; that annual percentage point difference over two decades changed Canada from being on par with the U.S. to about 20% less wealthy. Again, economic growth is the most important concept when dealing with any issue of national economic health. By the mid-90s, Canada was on the brink of bankruptcy, very similar to what the U.S. is going through at the moment. Much like Obama today in the U.S., Trudeau was the principal architect of Canada’s impending financial implosion, and it took Chrétien and Martin to bring the country back from the brink (in a sort of parallel way, if elected, that’s the job that will befall Romney).

There is a fine line between being a strong executive and an autocrat, and Trudeau often veered to the latter. Most totalitarians of the 20th century were from the Left (the Communists, of course, were from the Left, and, Orwellian descriptions aside, so were the Nazis; remember, Nazi stands for National Socialism; it was not a right-wing movement, as the media likes to distortedly portray; the reason they do so is to give some sort of equivalence that modern totalitarianism comes from both ends of the political spectrum: not true). Trudeau, while not a dictator, really exemplified this impulse to act above the law with an ends-justify-the-means ethic. In the process, he probably did more to divide and splinter the country (Quebec and Western Canada) than anybody, and, in my opinion, the huge strides the separatist movement made in this period were all because of him, as was the creation of the Western secessionist movement (which is ironic, because Trudeau, despite all his faults, was a Canadian nationalist). The problem was not Trudeau’s motives (again, he was a nationalist), but his arrogance, his heavy handedness, his Marxist bent and the fact he at times acted dictatorially, fraying the regional threads of the country in the process.

Let’s focus on Quebec.

Quite frankly, it is because of Trudeau that there were any separatist referendums (the first in 1980, which was defeated soundly, and the second, which occurred in 1995, which came within a hair’s breadth of winning), and they both stemmed from the fact that, while from Quebec, he did more to alienate the province than any other Canadian politician. Again, to be fair, Trudeau didn’t create the separatist movement (it has always been a latent force in Quebec politics), but his actions helped propel it, and his recklessness and quest for a legacy almost led to Quebec’s departure (the 1995 referendum was a 50.5%, 49.5% defeat; a few votes the other way, and Quebec would have left; again, in my opinion, Trudeau is completely to blame).

Let’s examine how this all happened.

Do you remember the FLQ? They were a Quebec separatist terrorist organization that was agitating in the 1960s; I think they engaged in a few bombings and attempts at public mayhem, but I was too young so I don’t remember. In 1970, as you may recall, they kidnapped a British trade representative (James Cross, I think, was his name) and a Quebec cabinet minister (Pierre Laporte); they ended up killing Laporte. There was a massive manhunt, which was the biggest Canadian police operation to that date.

Anyway, how Trudeau and the Federal government responded did more to fan Quebec separatism than anything the FLQ could have hoped to achieve. Instead of treating it as a law enforcement issue (with the RCMP), he treated it as a military issue, and invoked The War Powers Act and called in the military. You may remember reading that Quebec was put under Federal martial law. Even the press was incredulous and when pushed and asked how he could even think about it (before he imposed martial law), his answer was, Watch me. It was as if the Federal government (with the Canadian army) had invaded Quebec; it was the sort of act dictators do (very similar to another socialist and what she did seven years later on the other side of the world: Indira Gandhi’s Emergency Declaration suspending democracy in India in the late 1970s). The media and historians like to portray that October event as Trudeau being like Harry Truman, but it was more akin to someone who viewed democracy with disdain, and who decided to impose his power to solve a problem, democratic institutions be damned.

What it did within Quebec, though, is to light a torch to the separatist movement (all the anti-Canada rhetoric was more or less vindicated by the invasion of the Canadian army). The Parti Québécois (PQ) was the political wing of the FLQ, and by 1973 they were the official opposition (Trudeau, by his actions, raised the stature of a terrorist group into a respected political party). By 1976, René Lévesque (the PQ leader) was the Premier, and the first referendum took place in 1980. Trudeau basically spawned the separatist movement as a dynamic political force by his actions during the FLQ crisis.

What’s interesting is that there should be a statue in Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto (the plaza in front of City Hall) of Trudeau; he is the godfather of Toronto’s status as Canada’s flagship city and Canada’s international city to the world.

Why?

Well, up to the mid-1970s, Montreal was Canada’s leading city: the co-financial capital and certainly the cultural capital. If it weren’t for the PQ victory and the fact that separatism became a perennial political issue, Montreal would be still be Canada’s international city (remember, it had one of the last great World’s Fairs in 1967 and the Olympics in 1976; relative to Montreal, Toronto was a sleepy backwater); after the PQ victory, the English and business flight (starting symbolically with Sun Life moving to Toronto) started Montreal’s long, slow decline into a regional city; in terms of importance, Montreal may have already fallen behind Vancouver (Canada’s gateway to the Pacific). Remember Chaos Theory: Trudeau’s dictatorial actions in October 1970 during the FLQ crisis started Montreal’s decline and Toronto’s ascension (unfortunately, that has also coincided with the Leafs horrible decline and the Canadiens establishing themselves as the New York Yankees of the NHL). Toronto’s rise in prominence is attributable in large part to the folly of Trudeau.

In the next email, we’ll discuss how Trudeau’s repatriation of the Constitution almost led to Canada’s dismemberment in 1995.

Pierre Trudeau and the Canadian Constitution

Abhi, let’s continue with our discussion of Trudeau. For those who were not in Canada in 1995, it’s hard to describe how close the country came to fragmenting. Quebec had its second referendum in October, and it was defeated 50.5% to 49.5% (the immigrant vote in Montreal carried the day; but for them, Quebec would have voted to secede). In 1980, a similar referendum was decisively defeated, but, in 1995, it almost passed. That change, that hardening of attitudes and that desire to leave the country among those in Quebec can in large part be attributed to Trudeau.

How did that happen?

It all stems from Trudeau’s quest (and the fact he achieved it in 1982) to bring Canada’s Constitution home. Up until then, Canada’s birth was unique among the countries of the world; its founding documents were a mere legislative act of the British Parliament (The British North America Act of 1867). Legally, you might say it wasn’t a real country, but rather a dominion of the British (that’s why before 1982, it was often referred to as the Dominion of Canada, July 1 was Dominion Day, and, if I’m not mistaken, on our passports, we were referred to as subjects of the British Crown).

Trudeau’s vision was to be the Jefferson or Madison of Canada by creating and bringing home a real Canadian Constitution (a document created in Canada and signed by the Queen giving Canada the status of a truly independent country). Trudeau’s unmatched significance in Canadian history is that he achieved this, and you might say he is the father of the truly independent Canada.

The Constitution itself, like the U.S. one, has two parts: the first deals with the separation of powers and the second deals with the natural rights of its citizens (like the U.S. Bill of Rights; in Canada, it is called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The Charter has all the standard boilerplate stuff (freedom of speech, religion, etc., but what is interesting is what it omitted; unlike the U.S., where property rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, in the Canadian Charter, property rights were purposely excluded; remember Trudeau’s Marxist leanings); it is a pretty well crafted, well written legal document, to be sure.

The first part, though, the separation of powers one, is where things became contentious. Quebec wanted some sort of recognition that it was unique in Canada in terms of language and culture, and that the new Constitution (before the province would sign off and agree to it) needed to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada (with more control at the provincial level on education, immigration and taxes). To be honest, what Quebec was asking for was 80% symbolic, and among the remaining 20% there was nothing that could have been construed as radical or unreasonable. Trudeau balked, though; he refused to cooperate or compromise (again, that totalitarian impulse revealed itself), and basically presented Quebec with a fait accompli.

The authorizing legislation that gave Trudeau the power to negotiate with Britain to bring the Constitution home had a formula that 7 out of 10 provinces representing 80% of the population (something along those lines) had to ratify the new Constitution for it to be approved. Well, Trudeau’s strategy was to isolate Quebec, and he treated the province as a non-entity in the Federal/Provincial negotiations leading up to ratification. The new Canadian Constitution was approved in April 1982, with every province signing it except Quebec. The second largest province, with perhaps 20% of the country’s population, was effectively shut out (very shabbily, I might add), and the new Canada was created completely without regard to Quebec’s views or input. You can well imagine how that fueled separatists’ passions within the province.

It was a blight on what should have been a really marvelous, historic and symbolic event: the repatriation of Canada’s Constitution (the Queen came to Canada and there was a huge signing ceremony in Ottawa). I am not a big fan of Quebec and the constant whining with respect to its relations with the rest of Canada, but they were treated wretchedly by Trudeau.

For the next 10 years, the dominant theme in Canadian politics was how to bring Quebec into the fold (which is perhaps why economic issues and growth were always on the back burner); it was a never ending soap opera (more or less created by Trudeau). Brian Mulroney (who was from Quebec, too) wasted much political capital trying to reach a compromise and get Quebec back in Confederation, but, by that point, Quebec’s position had hardened. They did start acting increasingly unreasonably, and it just created this toxic, house divided atmosphere.

By 1992, an agreement was reached at the resort in Meech Lake, Quebec, between Mulroney and all the provincial Premiers (The Meech Lake Accords), including the Premier from Quebec. The mechanism, though, to amend the Constitution required a national referendum, which took place in 1993; I was living in The Hague at the time. English Canada rejected the treaty, the argument being that Quebec was being given too many sovereign powers (over immigration, education spending, public pensions) that would in effect make it a first among equals. After Meech Lake died, the whole political landscape became more strident. The sentiment in Quebec hardened; the separatists fed off the crisis and soared in the polls. In 1995, they called a provincial referendum, and almost won (they lost by a little less than a percent); but for a few immigrant votes, as I mentioned, Quebec would probably have some form of independence today.

To this day, Quebec is still not part of the Canadian Constitution (officially); de facto it is, but there has never