Category: Chairman’s Desk

The article appeared in the Toronto Star on Sunday, June 26, 2016.’

Hillary Clinton’s victory in the June 7 California primary represented more than just establishment political forces prevailing over a Bernie Sanders insurgency. It was yet another notch in the belt for dynastic political families.

Dynastic politics are often challenging: the idea of politicians rising to power under the steam of a family name challenges the ideal of meritocracy we praise in democratic systems. It seems like a revival of the monarchies of the past: sweeping tales of glory, pride and redemption, or, sometimes, rejection.

In recent political history, there have been a number of political dynasties. The Clintons, the Bushes, the Le Pens, the Notleys, the Trudeaus: the list of families in democratic nations that have heavily influenced modern politics is long and growing.

It’s not a particularly difficult phenomenon to understand: voters become intimately familiar with high-profile political figures, and lionize (or demonize) their name and brand. The goals, values and aspirations that voters associate with the parent or spouse who came first in the dynasty are superimposed over the public image of the successor.

Many of these dynasties began decades ago, and almost all were initially headed by men. Those in the family who follow as politicians must embrace the legacy of their parent or spouse, and simultaneously forge their own independent legacy, highlighting differences and divergences.

Recent history shows just how tentative that dance can be.

Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far-right National Front party in France, ignited controversy with inflammatory speeches and anti-immigrant sentiment that appealed to right-wing French voters. His daughter, Marine Le Pen, took over the party in 2011 and has taken it to new heights by adopting many of his ideas, but she has taken steps to highlight a softer, kinder approach. This shift has been reflected in French politics, with Le Pen leading some recent polls on the 2017 French presidential election.

In the United States, George H.W. Bush was elected president as a continuation of Ronald Reagan’s legacy. However, his policy-heavy approach and struggle to connect with average Americans led to his eventual defeat. A little less than a decade later, his son, George W. Bush, was elected as a two-term president. He followed his father’s right-wing agenda, but complemented it with a folksy charm and an easy manner in connecting with Americans.

Closer to home, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s father, Grant Notley, served as leader of the moribund Alberta NDP for 16 years. His daughter’s sweeping victory last year would have been unimaginable to a man who had spent decades fighting conservative hegemony. Premier Notley’s centre-left agenda has all the trademarks of her father’s cautious, yet populist-left wing views.

No one need be reminded that our Prime Minister himself is the product of dynastic politics — the son of one of Canada’s most memorable prime ministers. Pierre Elliott Trudeau left an indelible imprint on our society, with his personable charm and his commitment to socially and fiscally liberal policies. Not surprisingly, Justin Trudeau has benefited immensely from his father’s legacy.

The current prime minister followed in his father’s footsteps in many ways. He has pursued many of the nation-building ideals credited to his father. He has inspired a generation of younger voters to engage in the political process. And he has attacked Canada’s economic travails with the same Keynesian strategy his father followed.

But there are also palpable differences. While his father was often described as unbending, our current Prime Minister prides himself on flexibility. Pierre Trudeau enjoyed sparring, while Justin Trudeau prefers co-operation. Trudeau senior was dismissive of giving MPs independence, while Justin Trudeau has promised to empower them.

The politics of dynasties are fascinating — and a relatively new phenomenon in Canada. It remains to be seen how far Canadian voters are willing to allow a brand to stretch. However, it was certainly a harbinger of things to come when, just two months ago, a 19-year-old Ben Harper, the son of former prime minister Stephen Harper, took his first tentative steps into the political arena by penning an op-ed piece criticizing Justin Trudeau for his deficit spending.

Plus ‘a change.

As we head to the summer break, Jaime discusses the best and worst of the political year, thus far, on CBC’s The Insiders.
Aired on June 20, 2016

The article appeared in the Toronto Star on Sunday June 19, 2016.

The homophobia politicians unleashed to great effect to win votes for much of the 20th century has deeply poisoned the well

Words matter.

We live in a world where people criticize, slander and insult others in anonymous online comments, where no topic seems to be sacred and few things seem to have the ability to shock.

Instead of expounding on policy issues and engaging in meaningful debate, many politicians willingly express almost any sentiment at the loudest volume, no matter how incendiary, or inexplicable, the comment.

It is difficult to imagine any credible nominee for the presidency of the United States saying such derogatory and xenophobic things as Donald Trump says almost daily.

And yet we continue to hurtle further and further into an abyss where no matter how hurtful, nasty or violent a sentiment is, it is allowed to pass.

As a gay man I have, over my entire life, seen first-hand the power of a single word — the impact it can make in the lives of millions.

George Orwell once said, ‘If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’

The horrific shooting in the early hours of Sunday, June 12, at the gay nightclub, Pulse, offers proof of that statement.

Although it seems like ages since homophobic slurs were uttered without hesitation, it was only a decade ago that LGBT rights were used as a political football in the democratic arena.

The polarizing words that politicians used to divide the electorate against the unfamiliar LGBT community were damaging, demeaning and corrosive. Yet, that strategy brought electoral success. George W. Bush’s narrow victories in 2000 and 2004 were credited to his promise to protect traditional families against the threat of equal marriage; governors and premiers across North America found success by planting themselves in opposition to the LGBT community.

Politicians have long exploited the unknown and the unfamiliar to reap electoral benefit. ‘Traditional marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,’ Bush charged in his successful re-election campaign, throwing a sharp focus on the LGBT community.

And though the political landscape has shifted, the struggle continues.

The United States Senate has long tried to pass legislation protecting gays and lesbians at work, only to be stymied by the House of Representatives. In Canada, legislation that would protect the rights of transgendered people has struggled to pass.

Homophobia is a dying strain of thought, a holdover from a different political era.

But dying is a far cry from dead.

Words mattered then, and they matter now. The homophobia that politicians unleashed to great effect to win votes for much of the 20th century has deeply poisoned the well against the LGBT community among large segments of the population.

Let’s make no mistake: the trenchant homophobia that remains among many religious communities must be challenged.

But the language that politicians have used for decades has been deeply harmful to LGBT people. The language against them has corrupted the thoughts of many — and violence has followed. Members of the LGBT community often find themselves the victims of physical and emotional attacks. The massacre at the Orlando nightclub is only the most recent.

LGBT people in Canada and the United States have grown up in a political minefield that has encouraged violence, promoted division and done irreparable harm to their families and the community.

It is no coincidence that LGBT people attempt suicide at a rate nearly 14 times that of the average.

It is for these reasons we must continue to be vigilant. Words are not meaningless; they are not merely expressions that can be thrown around without consequence.

The words that our politicians, our colleagues and our families choose to utter have a profound effect on the lives of so many. Public and private discourse shapes the way society perceives communities of people.

The outrageous ramblings of someone like Donald Trump can occasionally seem amusing. He launches into rants in a way that is almost comedic in its absurdity.

But if there is one lesson we should take from the tragedy in Orlando, it is that words really do matter, and language can corrupt thought.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

The article appeared in the Toronto Star on Sunday, June 12, 2016.’

Sophie Gr’goire Trudeau dropped the proverbial mic for both herself and the prime minister at last week’s annual Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner.

Critics step aside.

The annual dinner, held at the Museum of Canadian History in Ottawa, is Canada’s subdued replica of the White House Correspondents Dinner. It provides politicians with the opportunity to break bread with journalists and poke lighthearted fun at themselves. On a good night, it can be a very funny evening. But, often, things go horribly wrong.

Gr’goire Trudeau has been at the subject of a significant amount of criticism since her husband became the prime minister in October. Whether it is her’last name, her lullaby singing or public comments on the demands of her new role, it would appear that every week brings something new for the critics’to complain about.

She doesn’t deserve such criticism — nor should the prime minister’s family affairs become media fodder for a struggling press gallery.

The prime minister and his wife do not have the option to press pause on their public lives. Terrorists do not plan attacks around children’s hockey commitments, nor do G7 summits organize around sudden bouts of the common cold. A prime minister is always on the clock. And he and his family is entitled to support that recognizes this reality.

Gr’goire Trudeau does not get paid, nor does she have any official responsibility. However, by virtue of her own charisma and dedication to public life, a’large number of individual Canadians and organizations look to Gr’goire Trudeau for her support. Her progressive advocacy on issues such as mental’health and eating disorders is both important and rightly celebrated.

Yet her critics spew vitriol in their attacks. Whether it is her decision to hire an additional assistant, let her children’s caregiver go or embrace her husband in public she has been continuously criticized.

Gr’goire Trudeau seemed doomed to permanently damage her reputation.

Everything changed last Saturday at that Press Gallery Dinner. Sophie single-handedly re-calibrated the conversation. She forced a new perspective on how Canadians, her critics and the press gallery think about her and her family.

It is seldom that a single speech or appearance has the power to change public discourse so effectively. In a strategic stroke of brilliance, Gr’goire’Trudeau challenged the pundits, silenced the naysayers and rallied the troops ‘ all while creating shareable content that’s been viewed on social media’umpteen times.

Gr’goire Trudeau’s performance that night was reminiscent of First Lady Nancy Reagan and Former Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson’s career changing’remarks.

Back in 1982, prior to the patriation of the Canadian constitution and when Michael Jackson’s Thriller was on the top of the charts, Nancy Reagan was criticized for her ostentatious designer clothing and fancy new White House china. A narrative was cementing: Nancy Reagan was rich and out-of-touch with the American reality.

Mrs. Reagan would have none of it. At the suggestion of her press secretary, she surprised many at the annual dinner of the Gridiron Club when she appeared in a skit dressed as a cleaning lady and sang Barbra Streisand’s ‘Secondhand Rose.’ Reagan’s rendition went: ‘Second hand clothes, I’m wearing second hand clothes, They’re all the thing in the spring fashion shows.’

Her decision to poke fun at herself was embraced, the reviews were tremendous and it was reported that the president was thrilled. This one act fundamentally realigned the tone of future media coverage and her popularity soared. A single moment in time was responsible for resetting the conversation for a generation.

Similarly, when Adrienne Clarkson was appointed governor general in 1999, criticism was ripe: another left-leaning, CBC broadcasting, Laurentian elite had been appointed as the Queen’s representative in Canada — or so the critics claimed.

However, Clarkson, like Mrs. Reagan before her, silenced the critics with a singular performance that reinforced national cohesion and respect of country.

Clarkson’s eulogy read at the repatriation of the tomb of the unknown soldier was unanimously received as a powerful statement on Canadian identity. As journalist John Fraser reported, ‘You have to go back pretty far to find anyone who stirred national emotions the way Clarkson did with her magnificent speech ﾅ’

In public life, impressions are formed instantaneously. First impressions are almost always everything. However, occasionally the right combination of authenticity, strategic brilliance, self-awareness and luck single-handedly disrupt public discourse and opinion.

On this score, at least, Gr’goire Trudeau’s appearance last weekend hit all the right notes.

On this week’s edition of The Insiders, Jaime and his fellow panellists explain what it take to clean up a mess like last week’s House of Commons fiasco. (Cross-posted from the CBC).
Aired on May 24, 2016