Justin Trudeau and the dangers of democratic dynasties

Justin Trudeau may still be re-elected. However, the Conservatives can rest easy in the knowledge that Trudeaumania, at least for this current Trudeau, is well and truly dead.

What is noteworthy, however, is the atmosphere of surprise and confusion that has clouded commentators' judgements surrounding the downfall of Trudeau. In the corridors of Ottawa’s broadcasters, it may have appeared absurd that natural political decline should apply to their darling Prime Minister; the leader of the “woke world.”

Trudeau’s appearance of invincibility, which still makes these commentators swoon (note the SNC-Lavalin coverage) was first created in those blue-skied months following his leadership election in 2013.

Perhaps Justin, with his charisma and handsomeness, seemed like a breath of fresh air to Canadian progressives. Gone were those days of Ignatieff, the drooling philosopher, who rather spectacularly (considering his semi-illiterate predecessor) lost 43 seats forcing the Liberals into third-party status.

With Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberal party would have a candidate who seemed so perfect for Canadian political life that even a eugenicist would struggle to replicate it. With his status as an Anglophone-Quebecois, which managed to pacify the sensibilities of English Canada, whilst having his Quebecois heritage to maintain seat-rich Quebec—Trudeau must have seemed like a divine gift.

Yet even in those early days, Trudeau lacked noticeably in the fundamental requirements that statesmanship should necessitate. He had no political experience after being almost casually elected to the House of Commons. Nor did he possess any working experience, and had been entirely unknown to the Canadian public until the eulogy at his father’s funeral. To put it quite simply, Justin Trudeau would have never become Prime Minister of Canada if his father, Pierre, had not been one too.

It seems acutely ironic that in the most meritocratic system ever devised by mankind, a democratic aristocracy can continue to be supported. The United States is, of course, the most depressing example. Even after a bloody revolution that intended to purge the New World of arbitrary and heredity power, the electorate continuously grants the great offices of state to a caste of spoiled princelings.

This seems additionally insulting when these princelings revel in the public’s indifference, or even deference, of democratic aristocracies. Take, for instance, the then-congressman Patrick Kennedy, who delivered what he thought was a rousing attack against President Bush’s tax cut; telling his crowd: "I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a f*cking day in my life."

Patrick Kennedy’s statement is one that is particularly charged with elitism. Yet, statements like these are not at all uncommon amongst those who have claimed power like their ancestors before them. Justin Trudeau, much to the embarrassment of his wife, has similarly made comments claiming divine right to rule. The most notable example being his “I was put on this planet to do this … I fight and I win.”

The sheer arrogance of this allows parallels to be drawn with Caesar’s “I came, I saw, I conquered.” This metaphor, however, may be unfair: Caesar never bought public opinion with a $600 million, taxpayer funded bribe. Nor did he feel it acceptable to become Consul only with his previous experience being that of a bouncer and a substitute teacher.

The fact that Trudeau was so quickly able to charm the Liberal Party, the press, and the Canadain public, reveals a certain sickness in democracy. In North America in particular, democratic electorates are only too willing to forgive inexperience, and in Trudeau’s case, blatant stupidity, so long as the candidate possesses a famous last-name.

Since the 2016 American Presidential Election, Canadians have been particularly smug in pointing to Trudeau as a sign that Canada is unaffected by this modern, populist fad. Yet, through dry-eyed analysis, it seems clear that the leadership of Trump and Trudeau is only a culmination of the on-going path to populism.

This shift, beginning with the 1960’s populist, left-wing anger at the establishment, matured into Reagan’s and Pierre Trudeau’s folksy charisma, and ended in Trump. A form of demagoguery that can withstand sex scandals and resignations; entirely unimaginable twenty years ago. With Trudeau’s ratings being hardly affected by the recent SNC-Lavalin report, it is worthwhile to consider where he fits into this pattern.

In the wake of Trump, populism has surely become more subtle. We now have elites educated in both statecraft and electoral manipulation; and who possess the skill of how to not appear demagogic. Maybe Trudeau fits into this mould more—appearing woke, but in fact, aligned to the preservation of the democratic elite.