Trudeaumania Version 2.0?

Will Murray:

Well, the Liberal leadership race looks like it’s getting its first serious candidate (sorry paramedic from Manitoba).  Tonight, Justin Trudeau is set to announce he’s running for his party’s top job.  So, now that Justin is in, does this race turn into a coronation? Is he the right person for the job? How will he perform compared to Harper and Mulcair? And on the leadership question in general, what of the rules? How will they impact the race, and have any names emerged or retreated since we last talked leadership? 

Not for the first time, and not for the last, the Liberals are the topic for today’s discussion of Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel.

John Van Weringh:

It’ll only be a coronation if the other candidates treat it that way. We’ll certainly see how some high profile contenders feel about it in the next week or two, when they announce their decisions to or not to run. It’s in the party’s best interest to avoid it becoming a coronation, if for no other reason than they ought to figure out whether or not he could be the right person for the job – and a leadership campaign is a reasonable way to gauge that. 

WM:

On the surface, it certainly seems like Trudeau could win this one in a walk.  He'll likely be able to take advantage of the “supporters” category, and if some media reports are to be believed, a handful of other candidates won't bother running. I don't think such a race would be a good thing for the party.  I think it's important - for the long term success of the party - that the race acts as opportunity to test Trudeau.  Regardless, if he runs and wins he should be given at least two, if not three, elections to show what he can do.

The other point I’d like to make is on the last name.  Yes, Justin gets such a high profile because of his Dad, and yes people will talk about it, so in a sense it will have an impact, but I think it will be a much smaller impact than people think.   Justin will be judged on his own merit and abilities.  Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister 29 years ago.  There is an entire generation – and then some – of voters who don’t remember the Trudeau era at all.  It won’t change the confirmation bias that will unfold whether Justin succeeds or fails, but Justin’s performance will determine his popularity, not his last name.

JVW:

Yeah, I suspect the name essentially generates high expectations, which is great for him if he can meet them, but also means that there could be a backlash if he fails to meet them – or even if he looks like he’s trying to avoid making particularly substantive arguments. Indeed, there are already those who think he’s failed to meet them since being elected in 2008 – this perception that he’s an empty shirt. We’ll all know whether that’s true soon enough.

Greg Mills:

I suspect at least a few of the other mentioned contenders (and at least Marc Garneau) have enough support to fight out a decent leadership race and, win or lose, make it a decent competition. Whether or not some of the smaller camps decide it’s not worth the cost and decide to back out will be interesting to see though. I’ve never been on either the “For” or “Anyone But” Trudeau camps but over the last few months I’ve become more comfortable with the idea that Justin has the potential to be a successful politician with the ability to hold on to the job for a few elections – which is exactly what his party will need him to be.

What’s important for the Liberal Party to do now is recognize that a popular leader does not an electoral victory make. They still have a lot of work to do when it comes to rebuilding the grassroots, the fundraising machinery, and the electoral base, and while having a charming and popular leader might make those tasks easier, it certainly doesn’t do the work for them.

I found the Leadership Race’s rules pretty important to consider too, and from what I’ve been able to pick up on them they seem geared towards better ensuring the long-term sustainability of the party – limiting candidate’s debt to prevent wiping out another slate of candidate’s ability to compete again in their lifetime is supremely helpful.

WM:

I think the re-organizing part is absolutely key.  Without it, the leader won’t matter all that much. That being said, if the new leader, whoever it may be can hit the ground running and attract interest, the Liberals will have the opportunity to attract new people to this rebuilding process, something they sorely need.

JVW:

Which is the real advantage of Trudeau to the party - he can at least get people to actually stop and take a look. If they can present a vision that’s of interest, then they might be able to increase their vote share for the first time in over a decade.

 

GM:

Exactly - it’ll also be important to see how the Supporter-category affects this as well since it’s a new way for people who might be interested to get involved that’s unique to the LPC. Whether or not it draws in a substantive increase in votes or money or volunteers will depend more on the Party organization than the leader or leadership candidate that initially brings new people in.

I’m very unsure how Trudeau or Garneau will stack up against Harper and Mulcair, who are both arguably more seasoned politicians and have both demonstrated a comfort with hard, bare knuckle politics that I’m not sure either major Liberal contender can match. But on the other hand, a PhD Scientist/Space Hero or a charming, youthful schoolteacher would present very strong contrasts with both Harper and Mulcair.  

WM:

Indeed.  If the Liberals were in the Official Opposition and competing for power, I’d pick Garneau.  But, they most decidedly are not, so I’m not sure Garneau is the person to lead the party.  I think having a young leader stand in for a few elections is necessary, and inevitable, if the party wants to survive, so they may as well rip-off the band-aid and pick that person now.  Garneau is awesome.  He is also 63.  I don’t think that fits in what the Liberals need to do.

GM:

It’s also worth remembering the Dalton McGuinty example - recent plummet in popularity notwithstanding. Arguably McGuinty was not ready to lead the province when he first became the leader of the Ontario Liberals, and subsequently lost his first election. But he stayed in the job, he grew into the role, and the party’s pulled some surprising successes out of the last decade.

It’s an important case study for Trudeau’s team. He doesn’t need to be ready to be Prime Minister in 2015, because he’s never going to be. He needs to have the potential to grow into the role and if nothing else, I think he at least has that potential.

JVW:

An important question for the party, though, is whether they truly want to become the ‘party of Justin Trudeau’. I’m sure they’ve already had these discussions at the top, but that question is now put to the members, and they shouldn’t take it lightly. Regardless of how relevant and meaningful the grass roots or the local candidates might be, in a very meaningful sense, the party is all about the leader. The NDP was the party of Jack Layton, and is more and more the party of Tom Mulcair, while the Conservatives are in very many ways the party of Stephen Harper. Is the party ready – especially if they’re looking to follow him for at least the coming decade – to buy into what he’s selling, and really go with the image he’s projecting? We have a sense of the image he’s projecting, though I’d expect that to be molded and focused over the next eight months, but we’re still a bit in the dark as to what he’s selling, particularly policy. This might be good – he can simply adopt the most Liberal of Liberal values and policies – but it also might be bad – he might have a bunch of crazy ideas, or be a Zach Paikin devotee. He might also not particularly care about policy, which, if it were true and were visible to Canadians, could be a serious liability.

WM:

I think regardless of who they pick as leader, the Liberals need to stand behind and follow.  No knives or speculation after the first slip up.  I think Charest is a pretty good example of how far a party can go if it works together, is loyal to the leader, and gets out the vote.  Charest’s name was mud amongst all non-Liberals, but those who were Liberals got out and voted. 

Now, loyalty can’t be a blind one, and it can’t be one where people don’t speak up against top-down organization within the party.  Members need to take a role in organizing and drafting policy, but you can’t put the knife in the leader, you just can’t, and expect to be competitive.