Murray Dobbin Up to More Silliness

Murray Dobbin: Canadians disagree about politics, disagree about the degree to which we disagree. Duh.

Writing in The New Canada, Preston Manning noted that former Alberta Premier William "Bible Bill" Aberhart was once a figure of some revulsion in Canada. Likewise for his father, Ernest Manning.

Yet by the time Manning was founding the Reform Party the reputations of Aberhart and the senior Manning had started to undergo a process of rehabilitation. Manning was even appointed a Senator in 1970 -- by Pierre Trudeau, no less.

Manning must have understood that one day his own reputation would need rehabilitation.

When Manning founded the Reform party, the denizens of Canada's far left essentially declared war upon him, and very few waged that war more ruthlessly than Murray Dobbin.

So it should be unsurprising that Dobbin would be chomping at the bit to take another shot at Manning. What's surprising is that he actually waited a month to do so.

In a recent column at Rabble.ca, Dobbin takes issue with a poll commissioned by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. The poll concluded that the values of Canadians were subtly becoming more conservative.

Dobbin, naturally, takes exception to this, and complains that the poll allegedly asked the wrong questions:

"Rather than asking Canadians whether or not they thought abortion should be legal and that deciding on whether or not to have a child should be a woman's decision, the Harris Decima Manipulators asked whether people thought abortion was 'immoral.' Thus the poll claimed 75 per cent of respondents feel abortion is 'morally wrong.' Rather than ask the question about its legality directly they asked respondents if they though the government should 'regulate behaviour.' Only 21 per cent of the new centrists said yes."

Of course what Dobbin fails to recognize is that the question of whether or not abortion is morally wrong and whether it should remain legal are two separate questions, providing a better sense of the nuances of Canadian attitudes toward this issue.

Dobbin offers up the results of another poll that concluded that a majority of Canadians are pro-choice. (There is such a thing as pro-choice on abortion, but ARCC director Joyce Arthur and her cohorts are decidedly not pro-choice -- they're pro-abortion.)

Yet it apparently doesn't occur to Dobbin that Canadians could consider abortion to be morally wrong but still believe it should remain legal for cases where it is direly needed -- and most Canadians recognize that such cases do exist.

In the end, Dobbin refers to a forthcoming poll that will reach different results based on different questions -- and somehow readers are supposed to believe this discredits the Manning Centre poll.

It's a ridiculous premise: Canadians disagree on politics, disagree on the extent to which they disagree, and even disagree on the questions that should be asked.

This is no great surprise to any politically astute Canadian. Understanding of this should be considered a prerequisite for being involved in political debate in Canada. That Dobbin doesn't seem to understand this only underscores his unsuitability to participation in that debate.

Fortunately for Dobbin, we don't exclude anyone from that debate in Canada on the basis of consideirng them "unsuitable" -- despite the extent to which Dobbin would prefer otherwise.

Dobbin has long considered Preston Manning (in fact, long considered all conservatives unsuitable, as indicated by his application of a genetic fallacy argument to Manning and polster Allan Gregg). This is the reason why he's worked so hard to maintain an elaborate political mythology centred around Manning: that of the far-right extremist.

In fact, Manning is a political centrist who started the Reform Party reaching out to disgruntled members of all Canada's political parties. His brand of social conservative was not one that would be prohibitive of personal and social freedoms, but rather more of a social-ized social conservatism wherein conservatives accepted responsibility for providing for the sick and the needy.

That is why Manning has always advocated conservative reforms for social programs, rather than outright abolition of them -- something that has long escaped far-left zealots like Dobbin.

The creation of that mythology was abetted by the attraction of far-right racists and ultra-conservative zealots to the Reform Party, and somehow unrelenting in the face of the expulsion of those individuals from the party.

More pointedly, there's a reason why fringe parties even further to the political right than the Reform Party -- parties like the Christian Heritage Party -- emerged on the political landscape. Even though the Reform Party was too conservative for Murray Dobbin, it wasn't nearly conservative enough for many others.

Ever so slowly, the rehabilitation of Preston Manning's reputation has begun. Far-left zealots like Murray Dobbin may not like this -- but it is happening nonetheless.

That Canadians are slowly becoming more receptive to many of Manning's conservative ideas -- a phenomenon also chronicled by writers such as Brian Lee Crowley -- is indicative of this.

Dobbin can preach to the choir at Rabble.ca to his heart's content. Even if Canadians aren't becoming more conservative, as the Manning Centre poll indicates, it's clear that the understanding of Canadians' actually highly-nuanced political views are becoming more advanced.

Murray Dobbin may not like it -- but the majority of Canadinas will like it just fine.

Why Che Guevara Matters

When Che Guevara was executed in Bolivia in 1967, he left behind him a communist regime in Cuba, a revolutionary legacy and a bodycount in the hundreds.

Guevara's revolutionary legacy is what he's remembered best for. All too often, this legacy overshadows his historical misdeeds. The muderous and oppressive nature of the Cuban regime can be attributed as much to Guevara's influence as to Fidel Castro himself.

Yet since his death it's become apparent that Guevara's efforts have ultimately ended in failure. Communism never really took root in Bolivia. The Cuban regime has continually declined since taking power, but especially since the severing of its clintelist relationship with the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Yet, 42 years after his capture and death, Che Guevara still matters. The important question is: why?

Those who casually observed the (actually decreasing) prevalence of Che Guevara T-shirts on university campuses and counter-cultural venues would think that Guevara is merely a fashion icon.

To a certain extent, they're right.

Many of those who can be seen wearing these garments likely don't even know who Guevara was, let alone do they know about the things he did or what he stood for.

But for those who are aware of these facts, Che Guevara continues to matter, and continues to matter for extremely important reasons.

The fact is that Che Guevara is something of a political flashpoint. The debate over his iconography is fierce and combustive.

Progressives all too often embrace his image and legacy without informing themselves about what Guevara did, what he really stood for, and using their critical thinking skills to decide that perhaps Guevara isn't a figure they'd like to be associated with. Many progressives embrace his image without ever realizing that he actually stands for everything that a legitimate progressive should stand against.

Likewise, many conservatives fail to recognize the number of progressives who recognize Guevera for precisely what he was and reject him for it. As such, many conservatives use Guevara's iconography as an opportunity to denounce the progressive movement as a whole, as many did when they point to Barack Obama's campaign team's naive display of a Che poster in their office.

The debate over Guevara also provides a coherent link between the War on Terror era old the Cold War-era contentions between conservatives and progressives. Guevera can safely be villified in either era -- during the Cold War era as a communist, and during the ongoing War on Terror era as a terrorist.

It certainly helps that Guevara's actions have spoken for themselves. For those familiar with the real Che Guevara, his own actions have accomplished the act of villifying him.

But until each sides of the ideological divide acquaint themselves with the real Guevara, and recognize what Guevera truly means to each side of this divide, Guevara matters, and will continue to matter.

With any amount of good fortune, someday soon he'll matter no longer.

Oh Dear God, He Thinks He's Trudeau

Michael Ignatieff pulls most predictable Liberal card

In a speech at the Liberal party convention, Michael Ignatieff has taken to comparing himself to Pierre Trudeau.

Quelle Suprise.

The comparison of the Liberal leader of the day to the prototypical Liberal political myth has become so utterly predictable that one has to wonder if Canadians ever bother to take notice anymore.

"You have to indulge an old guy like me, but this is the feeling that I felt in 1968 at the great convention that chose Pierre Elliott Trudeau as our prime minister," Ignatieff crowed to an under-attended Liberal convention. "I had a feeling for the first time in my life that I wasn't a spectator, that I wasn't a bystander, that I was there, in my tiny way, making the history of my country. And this is what the Liberal party offers you, that sense, that belief, that faith, that together we make the history of this great country."

Funny that Michael Ignatieff would feel like more than a spectator at the Liberal convention at which he became leader. But the thousands of Liberals across Canada who just witnessed Ignatieff get amalgamated as leader without anything other than the preliminary pretences of a leadership campaign, it's likely that fewer Liberals share his sentiments than he would like Canadians to believe.

Ignatieff seems rather quick to overlook the fact that, unlike himself, Pierre Trudeau had to win the Liberal leadership. The 1968 convention he alludes to required no fewer than four ballots to elect Trudeau leader. Trudeau's leaderhsip was actually the most contested in Liberal party history.

Trudeau overcame Mitchell Sharp, Paul Hellyer, Robert Winters, Allan MacEachern, and Ernst Zundel (yes, that Ernst Zundel) to win the Liberal leadership.

Ignatieff's ascension to the leadership of the party, meanwhile, was abetted by the withdrawal of Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc from the leadership contest.

There's a world of difference between the two.

Even with the Liberal embrace of the one-member-one-vote system, Liberal leadership races will mean absolutely nothing in the absence of actual competition.

Ignatieff also falls far short of Trudeau on one other key count: Trudeau was unafraid to run and govern based on big ideas. As The Economist has previously noted Ignatieff has yet to take a stand on any particular issue that suggests that he stands for anything -- not even his own ideas.

It's far from shocking that Ignatieff would be so eager to hoist himself up to Trudeau's status. Trudeau's legacy -- for good or ill -- has been the Liberal party's most successful election tactic. The number of Liberals gutsy enough to try to identify Ignatieff as "the father of Canada" is equal parts bemusing and befuddling -- apparently they've entirely forgotten about a man by the name of Sir John A MacDonald.

Mythology has been the strong point of the Liberal party for decades. It's unsurprising that Ignatieff would ignore historical context to try to appeal to it now.

Not a Bad Start

Obama delivers on day one, but the hard work remains ahead of him

Of all the speeches a politician ever has to give, the one given on the day one becomes leader of their country is the one to get right.

Barack Obama certainly did that today.

Before an estimated crowd of four million people, Barack Obama took the oath of the office of President of the United States and gave a rousing, ambigious inaugural address -- one that was truly worthy of the historic occasion.

"The challenges we face are real," Obama announced. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America -- they will be met."

It's no surprise that Obama understands the work that needs to be done. Now, all that's left is for him to actually do it.

Obama certainly feels confident that the United States has the tools at its disposal to navigate the difficult waters ahead. "We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth," he said. "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Yet as Obama gets set to remake the United States, a question remains about what he would have the United States make itself into.

According to New School for Social Research Philosophy professor Simon Critchley, many Americans may have cause to wonder about this. Because Obama has created such a populist narrative around his candidacy and around his Presidency many Americans may have superimposed values onto Obama that he doesn't necessarily represent.

Certainly, this is the warning that Naomi Klein issued to progressives about Obama before he was even elected. Certainly, he may be more progressive than his predecessor, but he may not be nearly progressive enough for many of those who have entrusted him with their agenda.

Whether or not Obama is truly the progressive messiah that many have imagined will remain to be seen.

Obama also continued his clear attempt to build a pervasive political mythology around himself, taking the oath of office on the same bible Abraham Lincoln used in 1861. Certainly, it's fitting that the first black President take the oath of office using the same bible as the man who ultimately ended the atrocity of slavery, but the calculated symbolism is simply too much to overlook.

Considering Lincoln's central position in the American civil religion, there is little question that Obama and his team intended to use a Lincoln totem in order to solidify his place within that civil religion.

At the very least, the Democrats have finally decisively finished the act of snatching the legacy of Abraham Lincoln away from the Republican party forever. It probably helped them that this legacy is one they surrendered long ago.

Barack Obama is off to a fine start as President. But this is only day one.

Only the future can tell how well Obama will truly stand up to the office of President of the United States of America.

Obama Completes the Messiah's Journey

Barack Obama solidifies his place in American Civil religion by retracing Lincoln's footsteps

With just two days before his Inauguration as the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama has arrived in Washington.

Considering the messiah narrative surrounding Obama -- a narrative wrought with racial overtones -- it may only be fitting that Obama arrived in Washington via a six-city train trip that followed the same route Abraham Lincoln used to travel to Washington in 1861.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with American politics knows, Lincoln is revered in the United States for ending the civil war and for ending slavery.

However, as Molly Worthen notes, Lincoln's significance to American political culture goes deeper than this simple reverence. In fact, Lincoln is a central figure in what Worthen describes as the American civil religion -- a term coined by Jean-Jacques Rosseau to describe political narratives that embued with the sacred character normally reserved for religion.

According to Worthen, a civil religion inherently is not a theistic religion, but draws many of its roots from a theistic religion.

In the case of the United States, according to Worthen, the American civil religion finds its origin in the notion of American exceptionalism that seems to find its ultimate origin in a 1630 sermon given by original Massachussets Governor Reverend John Winthrop.

Winthrop, a Puritan, was leading his colonists to America in order to build a "shining city on a hill" -- God's model society that they can then export back to Britain. However, as they became disillusioned with the Purtian movement in Britain, who compromised their beliefs in exchange for political power, Winthrop and his American Puritans decided to focus on spreading their religious ideology throughout the United States, including westward.

The Puritans, the most educated and literate of the American colonists, had a decided advantage in disseminating their ideology.

Spreading westward, however, compromised the Purtians' religious beliefs not in the name of political power, but in the name of survival. Faced with more and more rugged and dangerous terrain and the other perils of westward expansion the Puritans eventually came to focus their efforts on simply surviving.

In time this focus on survivalism mixed with various religious revivals -- which Americans of the day oddly enough believed originated in Canada -- to create uniquely American brands of Christianity: namely, Baptism and Methodism, the leading evangelical religions in the United States today.

Interestingly enough, as the United States approached the time of the Revolution at the formation of the United States, evangelicals worked closely with secular humanists to ensure the separation of church and state. For secular humanists, the reason why they desired this is fairly obvious. For evangelicals, however, the matter was not quite so transparent. Evangelical religions demanded a voluntary conversion. The idea of state coercion into their religions was anathema to the evangelical leaders of the time.

The American Civil War and slavery led to a splintering of the American civil religion. After the war, many of the freed slaves viewed the war as an act of liberation. Reconciliationists from the northern states regarded the civil war as a redemptive act, in which the sins of the American state -- slavery -- were erased via a baptism in blood and fire.

In the south, however -- which many southern religious leaders had described as "God's model society" before the war -- the narrative that emerged was very different. They saw the civil war as a "noble defeat", and organizations such as the Ku Klus Klan were born in the belief that they needed to protect white women from sexual advances from freed slaves, and redeem the blood spilled in the war.

Lincoln's assassination in 1865 ensured his place of martyrdom in the American civil religion. His Gettysburg address and Inaugural address have been canonized in the minds of the American populace, right along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

With Obama's election, however, this generation may be witnessing an integration of the emancipatory and reconciliationist narratives of the American civil religion. The ascension of the first black president in American history could be argued by many to finally redeem not only the crime of slavery, but also the overt racial oppression of African Americans for more than a hundred years after the Civil War, and more pervasive forms of racial oppression for many decades after that, reflective of inequalities that continue to exist today.

Whether or not Obama will actually deliver on the promises percieved by the emancipatory narrative -- a perception based on the demands that many African Americans place elected African American leaders, acknowledged by Obama himself in Dreams From my Father -- only time can tell.

But considering the effort the Democrats have put into building a pervasive political mythology around Obama -- including Ted Kennedy's health-defying speech at the Democratic National Convention -- there's no question that Obama's journey to Washington was an extremely calculated move.

As calculated as the journey was, however, it may actually fit. Obama may well be able to fill Lincoln's mythical shoes -- but only time, and his performance in office, will tell.

Barack Obama's Speech to the DNC

Obama brings the house down

In 2004, Barack Obama's political star inexorably rose with a fantastic speech at the Democratic National Convention.

In 2008, Obama, then a candidate for the Senate in Illinois and now candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, once again rolled out a magnificent performance.

The extended standing ovation he recieved is certainly equal parts genuine enthusiasm and calculated partisan cheerleading. But very rarely has politics witnessed such a transparent effort to create a political mythology.

Obama wisely began by referencing back to his widely acclaimed speech to the 2004 DNC, hinting back to the long-developing fervour that has led him to his nomination for the Presidency.

His 2008 speech addressed the same themes as virtually every other speech at the 2008 DNC: the allegedly disappearing American dream, the honourable service record of John McCain and their views of the George W Bush presidency.

"America is better than these last eight years," Obama entoned as he recounted the numerous failings of the Bush government: its treatment of war veterans, its health care crisis and its failure in the face of Hurricane Katrina.

"Enough!" Obama cried as he pointed to November's election as an opportunity to drastically adjust course.

Obama boldly declared that the time for the "discredited Republican philosophy" of the "ownership society" to "own their failures" has definitely arrived.

One thing that is quickly emerging as observers watch the Obama candidacy proceed is what may be one of the most determined efforts to concoct a political mythology in recent political memory.

The 2008 DNC has proven to be a pivotal moment in the birthing of this mythology -- a "modern day Camelot" as many commentators have described it. Ted Kennedy's "last-minute" speech to the DNC -- clearly planned well in advance but one still has to applaud the ailing senator's performance, all things considered -- the glowing support support of the previously-intractible Clintons and the set change for Obama's big address to the convention have all been clearly calclulated to transform Obama from a run-of-the-mill politician -- even if a spectacularly charismatic one -- to a political keystone for a new generation.

They certainly imagine that bringing together the Kennedy and Clinton legacies together to support Obama will transform his candidacy into a powerhouse, if not an outright juggernaut.

And they just might be right.

With the Democratic National Convention concluded, many people will be looking forward to the Republican convention to see if, even as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf coast, the Republicans can manage to match a spectacular Democratic convention.

Their work will certainly be cut out for them. Obama's speech alone was everything Democrats were expecting of it -- a sheer masterpiece.

Yep, That's Just What We Need...

...Not

If there's anything members of the Liberal party can be said to almost universally love, it's Pierre Trudeau.

One could be forgiven for being unsurprised, then, to learn that Mario Silva, the Liberal MP for Davenport, has tabled a private member's bill that would recognize every October 18th, the anniversary of Pierre Trudeau's birthday, as "Pierre Trudeau day".

"Trudeau was a symbol of Canada at its best and as Prime Minister he moved Canada forward into later part of the 20th century with vigor, innovation and daring," Silva insists.

Yet, while Silva notes that Trudeau's accomplishments include "the patriation of Canada’s Constitution, the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrining both our nation's official languages in law and establishing multiculturalism as an official policy of the Government of Canada," his portrayal of Trudeau falls a little flat once one considers the broader facts of the matter.

Trudeau's Constitution, patriated without Quebec's support, has left the door open to an eventual secession of Quebec from Confederation. His Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be ignored by any provincial government by envoking a clause within the Charter itself. (Ironically, more legislation has been passed "notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms" than was notwithstanding John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights.) While enshrining French and English as official languages sounds good in Quebec, the enshrinement of these two languages has actually come at the expense of Canada's many other linguist groups -- the Constitution defines Canada as bilingual, when in fact Canada is multilingual. Of Trudeau's accomplishments, perhaps official multiculturalism (as contentious as it may often be) and his omnibus bill stand alone as largely unassailable.

Yet when one consider's Silva's list of Trudeau's accomplishments (Silva didn't list the state-has-no-place-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation omnibus bill), as flawed as they are, constitute the near entirety of Trudeau's accomplishments.

For a man who spent nearly 18 years in power, that's a very short list.

So, we may ask, what of Trudeau's other promises? What about his so-called "just society"? He merely noted that Jesus had promised it first (though, at the time of the asking, was not alive to answer for it, while Trudeau certainly was). What about his "participatory democracy"? One had better have bought a Liberal party membership if they wanted to benefit from that. What about his "war on deflation"? That was a bit of a disaster.

The Liberal party love of Pierre Trudeau aside, this really is little more than an attempt by mr Silva (at least) to further the myth of Pierre Trudeau that has reigned in Canada for decades, and especially since his passing.

It isn't as if there aren't other Canadian Prime Ministers whose accomplishments eclipse Trudeau's and deserve the recognition much more.

Trudeau's predecessor, Lester Pearson, won the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the highest honours western society at large affords to anyone.

Sir John A MacDonald served as Canada's very first Prime Minister, having founded the country. Surely he deserves a holiday more than Trudeau.

William Lyon MacKenzie King, despite all of his bizarre occult antics, led Canada through one of the darkest chapters of history, the Second World War. As for Trudeau? He oppposed that war.

Whereas Trudeau can count among his accomplishments a happy shiny vision of Canada and a law that allows Canadians to hump blissfully as they may. While these are both laudable contributiosn (although only one of them offering any practical benefit), they aren't enough to justify either the Trudeau myth, or a holiday that would entrench it.

Fortunately, the "Trudeau day" private member's bill will almost certainly suffer the same fate as the attempt to rename Logan's Peak after Trudeau.

Mulroney Right About Pierre Trudeau

Dion reacts to uncomfortable facts about Trudeau

If anything has become a trend in Canadian politics recently, perhaps it’s Stephane Dion’s great love of criticizing anyone and anything Tory.

In this case, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who has apparently made some unwelcome comments about Pierre Trudeau.

“This is a man who questioned the Allies, and when the Jews were being sacrificed, and when the great extermination program was on, he was marching around Outremont on the other side of the issue,” Mulroney said in a recent interview.

Mulroney also suggested that Trudeau, his practical predecessor as Prime Minister (John Turner may have held the position, but was never elected to it), was morally unfit to govern because he withheld his anti-Semitism from his Jewish constituents.

"I'm sure many people will say because he wants to sell his book, ensuring that people will read a lot of cheap shots about a lot of people, in his one thousand, one hundred pages. Many people will say that, but I'm not here to comment about the book or the motives of Mr. Mulroney. I'm just here to say that Mr. Trudeau has been, indeed, an exceptional individual," Stephan Dion said.

Surely, many people will predictably rally behind Dion and the myth of Pierre Trudeau, but neither that fact, nor Dion’s comments, change the fact that was Mulroney has said is true.

Anyone who has so much as read the surprising Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada by Max and Monique Nemni (surprising in that it examines Trudeau’s youthful flirtations with fascism despite slavishly trying to dismiss them), knows that the things Mulroney has alluded to are all true.

Trudeau strongly believed in many things that contradict the modern political mythology surrounding the man. He was a separatist. He was anti-Semitic. He sympathized with fascists, and imagined Quebec as something of a fascist French-Canadian sovereign state. He even had a bizarre blueprint for decentralized corporatism (two concepts that are as preclusive of one another as anything).

The book even alludes to an essay, written by Trudeau while still in school, in which he suggests that he would “return to Montreal sometime around the year 1976: the time is ripe to declare Quebec's independence.”

In all fairness, any similarities between the plot Trudeau hatched as a schoolboy and the 1970 October Crisis that he faced as Prime Minister should probably be considered merely ironic.

Apparently, Dion, like the Nemnis, believes that we should disregard these, and many other facts about Trudeau, and instead say only good things about him.

"I am not hear to argue about what happened in the '40s. It's not a good context, considering what Mr. Mulroney is trying to do," Dion said. "When Mr. Trudeau passed away, Mr. Mulroney said that Mr. Trudeau was an exceptional individual who served his country effectively and well. Mr. Mulroney should reconcile his views with what he said at that time."

Yet Dion may want to reconsider whether or not Mulroney’s comments, then as now, require any reconciliation with one another. The fact of the matter is that Trudeau was an exceptional individual. Trudeau did a passable job of governing Canada (although his narcissistic insistence that the constitution had to be patriated, even without Quebec’s support, has opened a constitutional jar of worms that may never be successfully closed), including successfully dealing with the FLQ uprising of 1970 (even if he did step on a few toes in order to do it).

Perhaps it’s Dion, like the Nemnis, who need to reconcile Trudeau’s youthful beliefs with their comical image of Trudeau as “the father of Canada”.

The fact is that the mythical Pierre Trudeau and the historical Pierre Trudeau are two very different individuals. When stripped away of all the rhetoric and partisan imaginings, Trudeau simply becomes yet another politician who, acting largely out of self-interest and civic disinterest, made empty promises that he never intended to keep – as an example, Trudeau meant his grand promises of “participatory democracy” as a promise to make access to information regarding the activities of Canada’s government more accessible – so long as one was a Liberal party member.

What Dion will simply have to accept is that the legacy of Pierre Trudeau is one that is currently in a state of flux. It’s being reevaluated by a considerable number of people, and the Liberals aren’t guaranteed to like what is left over once this process is complete.

It may be discomforting to Liberals to watch the myth of Pierre Trudeau transform before their very eyes, as it has been doing more and more since his death. But it’s a reality the Liberals will have to learn to live with.

Dion would be wiser to convince his party to stop living in the past, as it (and perhaps the country) has been, than to try and keep such myths alive by castigating Brian Mulroney.