Some of the chatter around the federal election focused on the potential comparison between Justin Trudeau in 2019 and his father, Pierre Trudeau, in 1972. Given the circumstances 鈥� both men running to defend convincing majorities won four years earlier 鈥� it was an obvious topic.
I wrote a column on it last January, specifically wondering whether the son鈥檚 fate would be similar to his father鈥檚. Would comfortable majority turn into precarious minority, just as it surprisingly did in 1972?
It wasn鈥檛 a column I鈥檇 expected to write.
When Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister in 2015, I thought his popularity might have greater resilience than that of his father. It wasn鈥檛 a question of being a better leader, but rather of having a public personality with far fewer sharp edges.
Whereas people were initially dazzled by Pierre Trudeau鈥檚 charisma, intellect and strength, it wasn鈥檛 long before the accompanying arrogance and sense of moral superiority shone through. And this put a significant number of people off.
Having someone who doesn鈥檛 suffer fools gladly sounds fine until you realize that his definition of a fool tends to include anyone who disagrees with him.
In contrast to his father, I thought Justin Trudeau was largely free of these unattractive qualities. Or would at least hide them better. I was wrong.
So now that the results are in, how do father and son compare?
The things they have in common
Both men lost their majorities.
In Justin Trudeau鈥檚 case, his seat haul went from 54 percent to 46 percent of the total. His father鈥檚 seat loss was sharper, falling from 58 percent to 41 percent.
Both also experienced significant erosion in popular vote share, dropping between six and seven points. There is, however, a significant difference.
While Pierre Trudeau鈥檚 popular vote total ran between three and four points ahead of his nearest rival, his son came in almost a quarter-million votes behind. He was only saved on the seat side by a very efficient geographical vote distribution.
Finally, both men benefited from relatively lacklustre opposition.
For all his retrospectively ascribed virtues, Robert Stanfield was never going to light any political fires in 1972. And neither is today鈥檚 Andrew Scheer. This may not be fair, but fairness has nothing to do with it.
The differences
One of the things that鈥檚 different is the declining Liberal reliance on Quebec.
The province saved Pierre Trudeau鈥檚 bacon in 1972, giving him 56 of its 74 seats, which was just over half of his national total. Without Quebec, his pencil-slim two seat plurality would have disappeared and he鈥檇 have been unceremoniously turfed from office.
Indeed, consider a scenario where Quebec鈥檚 votes 鈥� for whomever they may have been cast 鈥� are excised from the national picture.
Pierre Trudeau鈥檚 political career would have been very different. While he鈥檇 still have scored a modest majority at the height of 1968鈥檚 Trudeaumania, he鈥檇 never have won another national election. His political reliance on Quebec was that profound.
Thanks to a pattern shift that began in the Jean Chretien era, Justin Trudeau doesn鈥檛 have the same dependence. Absent Quebec, he鈥檇 have 122 seats in a 260 seat house rather than 157 in a 338 seat house. That鈥檚 not much of a change in relative position.
There鈥檚 also a subtle difference in the two men鈥檚 minority governance situations.
Pierre Trudeau needed the support of a resurgent New Democratic Party (NDP). Having gained seats on a 鈥渃orporate welfare bums鈥� theme, they had the parliamentary votes to make legislation possible and the chutzpah to push their case.
Justin Trudeau, too, will need third-party support and the NDP is an obvious possibility. He does, though, have another practical option. Courtesy of the Bloc Quebecois resurgence, there鈥檚 a handy pool of votes to fish in on an issue-by-issue basis.
The Bloc may be separatist and Justin鈥檚 father may have been separatism鈥檚 arch-enemy, but there are deals to be made on other topics. Only the na茂ve would think otherwise.
And besides, the NDP had a poor night. Despite the many plaudits for leader Jagmeet Singh鈥檚 performance, the party鈥檚 Quebec collapse meant that it lost nearly half of its seats and around 20 percent of its vote share. That isn鈥檛 indicative of a party with intimidating big guns to deploy.
So what鈥檚 the bottom line? Is it yes or no to like father, like son?
Maybe it鈥檚 a bit of both.
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff鈥檚 eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical 鈥� well, perhaps just a little bit.
www.troymedia.com
