Canada’s “Sunny Ways” Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, received something of a “rockstar welcome”  from G20 protesters in Hamburg this weekend. I’m completely bemused by this hero worship and the return of Trudeaumania 2.0 because, for one thing, it’s quite unearned and undeserved. Trudeau’s apparent celebrity and popularity seems based in nothing more that the fact that he’s The Not-Stephen-Harper, Canada’s former Conservative Prime Minister whose authoritarian inclinations and brooding darkness about our “Sea of Troubles” sharply contrasted with Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” approach and demeanor.

But, for the most part, Justin Trudeau’s government has done very little apart from symbolic gestures to actual earn the “celebrity status” Trudeau has been accorded, and symbolic gestures to “progressivism” without corresponding substantive policy is just perception management. So, I would really like to caution you about mistaking such symbolic gestures for substantive policy and “real change”, as the Liberal slogan promises. Trudeau is not the white knight come to slay the neo-liberal dragon, to dispel the murk and gloom of the austerity policy and rectify the massively unequal distribution of the commonwealth, nor to rebuild and restore the resilience of the democracy after its inherent vulnerabilities to authoritarianism were revealed in the Harper years.

But when even Donald Trump says that “Justin is doing a spectacular job!”, and the head of the World Bank gushes about Trudeau, too, you have to wonder what that “job” really is except something quite akin to what Algis Mikunas called “technocratic shamanism”. But just being the “Not-Stephen-Harper” politician isn’t good enough to live up to the commitment for “real change”.

Trudeau has already reneged on what was a core policy proposal of his campaign — electoral reform to rebuild confidence and resilience in the democracy and to ensure that there is no repeat of the disgraceful Harper years. True, obstructionism from the Conservative opposition didn’t help much, nor the seemingly general apathy of the electorate about the matter. (British Columbia’s recent election, which saw a winning alliance of the Greens and NDP over the Liberals has made electoral and political finance reform a priority, so BC may lead and the country follow in this regard).

On climate change, too, the Trudeau government’s policy initiatives for mitigation don’t really amount to much more than symbolic gestures, or a case of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Even the media is getting a little restless about the marketing of the Trudeau “brand” and the government’s penchant for symbolic gestures over substantive policy, and it strikes me that the G20 protesters who gave in to Trudeaumania fell for this guff about the Trudeau brand.

It seems that this is the “job” that Mr. Trump thinks Justin is doing such a “spectacular job” at — self-branding and self-marketing, and persuading everyone that symbolic gestures and “Sunny Ways” are the equivalent to “real change” and substantive policy.

It is true that Trudeau represented a “breath of fresh air” after the suffocating rule of the Harper decade of government. It wouldn’t have been difficult for anyone to present themselves as the “anti-Harper” and a breath of fresh air. And it is probably true that there is more collegialism among the parties and Parliamentarians post-Harper, who very much resembles Turkey’s Erdogan, Hungary’s Orban, or the ruling (and badly misnamed) Law and Justice Party in Warsaw. If Stephen Harper boasted that he would make Canada unrecognisable after he was finished with it– that is to say, more illiberal, and achieved that to a certain extent — Trudeau has done very little to undo that aberrant legacy. In those terms, Trudeau’s celebrity is almost completely unearned. It wasn’t actually all that difficult to look like “real change” after Harper, or in contrast to many of the G20 governments of the day.

Of course, the formula for the success of the Liberal Party in Canada has been “campaign from the Left, govern from the Right” which explains why symbolic gesture never meets with substantive policy. Harper and the Conservative Party while in power succeeded, to some extent (as was their objective) to move the idea of the “centre” so far rightwards that what we conventionally understand as “centrist” (liberal) would look like ultra-leftism or “progressive” (a very bad thing to conservatives who have all become reactionaries. But then, the antithesis of the “Prog” is the “Trog”). The “centre” in the “New Normal” just ain’t where it used to be, and this is the “centre” that Trudeau occupies and from which he and his party govern.

It’s not difficult to see in this shifting “centre” a certain measure of “progress” into an extremity of self-alienation or “distantiation” as Gebser calls it, from the “vital centre”. And since the dialectical mind, with its triangular logic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is also reflected in our thinking about political orientations in terms of left, right, and centre respectively (where “centre” corresponds to “synthesis”) this shifting situation in the “New Normal” also attests to the breakdown of dialectical rationality and the dialectical paradigm.

As a consequence, though, Trudeau’s government is riddled with contradictions and self-contradictions as one would expect from following a strategy of campaigning from the Left but governing from the Right, or the inability to reconcile “progressive” symbolic gestures with real policy changes.

In fact, no real change is going to occur at all until we shift from this already inadequate (or “deficient” in Gebser’s terms) dialectical or triangulating logic and consciousness to a quadrilateral or fourfold logic and consciousness (the “integral consciousness”). That leap would be quite revolutionary in the positive sense, or what Gebser calls a “plus mutation” rather than a “minus mutation”. In other words, the former is what we call “progressive” in a real sense, while the latter is what we call “reactionary”.

And, of course, making that leap into this quadrilateral or fourfold logic and structure of consciousness has been the main purpose of The Chrysalis. So, I’m not going to remain uncritical, or be moved and impressed, by a merely triangulating politics that, while it may have been effective and adequate for a three-dimensional cosmos, is not adequate or effective in a “four dimensional” cosmos. “As above, so below” as the old saying goes. But presently there is a great chasm and dissonance between the “above” and the “below”, as it were. And that disharmony is the root of our problems, including the serious problem of anthropogenic climate change and the sixth extinction event.

Trudeaumania is a distraction from the necesssity of a critical examination of the foundations of civilisation (in its “structure of consciousness”) and of making that leap from this triangulating, dialectical logic to a more inclusive, more holistic quadrilateral logic which would be, in effect, a radical change in the mode of perception (the “Gestalt” of things) and the addition of a new faculty of consciousness — a new power of perception; “unfolding the wings of perception” as it were (Castaneda’s don Juan, and a phrase I quite like that hints at the real nature of freedom).

And unless we do make the “leap” and succeed in unfolding the wings of perception (Gebser’s “intensification” of consciousness) the game’s over for life on Earth. Climate change and the Sixth Extinction Event will become runaway and beyond recall.

For that reason, I can’t get enthusiastic about Trudeau, and regard Trudeaumania as a complete distraction, maybe even a greater distraction than Trump is. Trudeau’s own personal liberal project is feminism and LGBTQ rights. That’s well and fine, But it’s a peculiar kind of feminism which actually doesn’t differ all that much from Stephen Harper’s own domestic and foreign policy on Women’s and Children’s welfare, albeit Harper had all sorts of “conditions” attached on that aid reflecting his bias of social conservatism, his own patriarchical values, and his condescending patronism towards women’s health and welfare. Trudeau simply drops the social conservative spin on it, but the whole idea of his “feminism” still is to draw women from the periphery into the mainstream of a neo-liberal economic order and, as such, is a kind of co-optation of some of the more vital aspects of feminism itself. The problems of “patriarchy” and of neo-liberal ideology aren’t going to be resolved through “feminist entrepreneurialism”.

Some might dispute this, but Chrystia Freeland is a striking case in point. A close friend of the critical economist Joseph Stiglitz, Freeland also wrote books critiquing “free-trade” and the neo-liberal economic order and arrangements, along with the massive inequalities of wealth distribution it generated — particularly her book Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. Yet, as a Minister in Trudeau’s government, she was appointed Minister of Trade and now of Foreign Affairs. And as Minister of Trade she actually promoted that which she had largely critiqued in her book on Plutocrats and Plutocracy. It was she who finally cemented the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement (CETA) which was, ironically, an initiative of the previous Harper government. And it was she who threw a fit over the reasonable objections of the Walloon government over the investor-state dispute mechanisms and licentiousness of corporate power enshrined in the agreement. It was as if the woman who wrote Plutocrats was an entirely different woman from the Minister. That’s  very instructive about the contradictions of the Trudeau government and of the policy of campaigning from the left only to govern from the right, and of substituting symbolic gesture for substantive policy — a kind of Jekyll and Hyde schizophrenia.

It is a very curious thing, is it not, that those who protested CETA and now the G20 celebrate Trudeau as some sort of antithesis to all that when he’s actually the furthest thing from it. True, as a politician he is not as grotesque an aberration as Harper or Orban or Trump for that matter, which makes Trudeau look good by comparison. But the irony is that Trudeau has been sluggish to undo the Harper legacy and has, moreover, continued to pursue many of Harper’s policies albeit in a gentler and softer way, and from a social liberal rather than a social conservative mood. But that’s still a far cry from a social democratic programme.

So, why the hell are you protesters against neo-liberalism and the austerity policy celebrating Trudeau? Only because he’s “the Non-Harper”? Why are you celebrating Trudeau if an economic democracy and a social democratic order is what you want?

Or is it?



9 responses to “Trudeaumania”

  1. Steve Lavendusky says :

    From Homer to Hollywood, the entire First Axial Period was characterized by a tendency to the hero worship or the idolization of the “star” human being. The star is a very democratizing figure. He hardly needs any special abilities except ‘star quality’ and the ability to project it. Trudeau is a young, charming, handsome man. He is a highly public figure who shines and radiates a certain kind of glory. He could be described as princely. He’s not an old fart like Joe Biden. That’s all you need in today’s world. And let’s face it, he’s Canadian.

    • Scott Preston says :

      That’s an ironic note upon which to end a comment on star power. I know plenty of Canadians who I’ld rather weren’t.

      But, there’s a certain irony in the contest of Canadian politics that is pretty reflective of the state of reasonableness and of mind everywhere, and it goes something like this:

      Liberal: “the Conservatives are trying to make the country more illiberal”
      Conservative: “No we’re not! We’re trying to make the country more conservative”.

      Tweedle-dee, Tweedle-dum, and yet it looks like this huge partisan divide.

      And meanwhile, the social democrats wander in the wilderness trying to figure out where they are and where they fit in all this, and they actually blew their chance to form the government in the last election because they were all over the map politically — a policy hodge-podge of liberal and conservative positions without a sniff of social democracy about it. (That cost the leader his job after the election, and after the social democrats were routed in the last election).

      So, we have the same irrationalities and problems here as anywhere else. The struggle with “the New Normal” is just as prevalent here as anywhere else, and the hyper-partisanship almost (not quite) as intense as in the US or the UK, and the mental-confusion just as widespread as anywhere else. It’s not just in politics where this mental-confusion and disorientation is most noticeable and runs rampant. It’s in almost everything.

  2. abdulmonem says :

    Our consciousness is a sea where all kind of waves arise with no embargo on personal or public,serious or frivolous, joyful or saddening, the main thing is our understanding response to the risen. Our life is a mixture of laugh and weep,of wake and sleep of birth and death and the problem resides as mentioned in our nervous response or patient response. Misinterpretations and proper interpretations are always there distinguishing the crooked from the straight.

  3. Scott Preston says :

    A day in the life of America…

    And Canada…

    And here’s an interview with the dude who is, apparently, the Director of Inspiration of the “Proud Boys”

    Ah, well. From what I hear, the Proud Boys are about to get a humbling from the military command, and probably educated about the meaning of “Treaty”, something you think every military type should get familiarised with, since it’s a rather important notion in military history, kind of like the Social Contract.

    Of course, these Proud Boys are pretty young and naive — which is, fortunately, a rectifiable condition. But there’s something quite ironic — or perverse — about a group of apparently pubescent Canadian super-patriots (ie, “Western chauvinists” as they self-describe) who are little more than clones of an American rooted nationalist/neo-fascist movement (or perhaps one should say gang, although I’m sure they would be offended to be described as a “gang” even though they have all the gangster rituals and rites of initiation — extremely bizarre and quite adolescent ones, too, don’t you think? At least, as described by The Straight). Quite apparently, “Proud Boys” intends itself to be some caricature of The Hitler Youth.

    And you have to wonder why clowns like this are taken seriously enough to be interviewed by the CBC? Whatever happened to the once dignified and adult reporting that the CBC was famous for?


    • abdulmonem says :

      Oh Scott what a sad day both in America and Canada that there are still some who refuse to let go. Your Lee quote in your last post shows us how there are some who are searching for life continuation and how some work to terminate life, like the Nova Scotia governor you mentioned in your link that gives reward for killing people. It seems perverted crooks never stop until stop is enforced on them by horizontal or vertical forces.

  4. mikemackd says :

    For the last few days I have been studying a five-part series which went from 2011 to 2013 in the Kosmos Journal. It was meant to be a 10-part, but I can’t find any reference to the last half. The series is entitled “Toward a Common Theory of Value”.

    I mention them in this context firstly because the author, James B. Quilligan, was a political adviser to Pierre Trudeau. In his Wiki P2P, he claims that:

    I was asked to do research for a North-South development commission headed by Willy Brandt and later became its press secretary. With the help of our friends and colleagues, Fidel Castro, Bruno Kreisky, Olof Palme, and Pierre Trudeau, we nearly staged a multilateral coup. Thanks to Trudeau, we were able to introduce a very radical North-South development agenda at the 1981 G7 summit in Canada and at a follow-up meeting of 22 heads of state in Cancun that same year. We actually got the G7 and other international leaders to begin negotiations on the creation of a new international economic system, launching an entirely new and equitable economic framework for the world’s developing nations. But after this initial dialogue, the G7 reversed course and pulled out all the stops to thwart our movement. Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl (and to some extent the Japanese government) teamed up and coordinated their policy alliances through a more intensive strategy. To our astonishment, they rewrote the rules of the game, turning the economic system itself against our efforts. Instead of us changing the global economic system, they outflanked us and changed it themselves! Aid, trade, finance, monetary policy all became stridently bottom-line calculations, with nothing left to support authentic development. As Hayek replaced Keynes as the official ideology of the liberal system, we lost our leverage with the political center and developing nations began leaving the movement. Gradually, the Anglo-American initiatives for supply-side economics, deregulation and Friedmanesque monetarism became global policy, and the commons simply disappeared from the official platform.

    Most people, particularly on the left, have no idea how close we actually came to changing the international system during the period 1978-1982. I do not exaggerate in saying that it was truly within reach; but, sadly, we lacked genuine support at the grassroots and we trusted too much in the governments of developing nations. As an organizer in the common heritage and international development movements, I was witness to a history that has never been adequately explained or understood.

    Secondly, the approachin his series of articles in partly grounded on the work of McGilchrist, as he acknowledges in the third of the series, available at:

    Clearly, if Justin Trudeau is as insubstantial as you claim – and I have neither any reason nor any inclination to doubt it – the Quilligan would be most unwelcome. Is anyone here familiar with Quilligan’s work? I haven’t fully digested my feast yet, and would be grateful for any mental equivalent of Pepto-Bismol.

    • Scott Preston says :

      That’s quite fascinating. I didn’t really know of that initiative that was derailed. And I don’t know how much of Trudeau pere’s DNA in that respect is shared by Trudeau fils. But I do recall that name “Quilligan” from somewhere. But apart from Trudeau fils initiative in folding the ministries of foreign affairs, trade, development, and la francophonie into an umbrella “Global Affairs Canada”, I’ve yet to see it actually do anything similar to what Quilligan planned with Trudeau pere.

      Usually, the Liberals get too comfy with the notion that they are “Canada’s natural governing party”, which is pretty much the case. The Canadian joke whenever the Conservatives get elected is that they’re just keeping the chair warm for the Liberals, and I’m a little concerned that Trudeau fils is now falling into that complacency himself.

      Harper and the Conservatives were intensely resentful and envious of this notion of the Liberals being “the natural governing party” and when the Liberals were weak, and the Conservatives got elected (just barely elected) he set about to make the Conservative Party Canada’s “natural governing party” by attempting to rig and jig the system to the advantage of the Conservatives — that, and Harper’s crudeness and resentfulness — was enough to turn fairly large segments of the vote away from the Conservatives.

      Now I’m a little concerned that Trudeau’s complacency with that “natural governing party” notion may be paving the way for the return of another “Harperite”.

      But I’m not convinced that, after Harper, Canada has been inoculated against a return to the politics of right-wing resenttiment.

      At the moment, though, the best I can say of Trudeau is that he’s Not-Stephen-Harper and he’s not a Troll.

      • mikemackd says :

        Here in the land of Oz, the liberals and the conservatives are both in the same party, often termed the coalition, which is in government: the Labor Party is the main opposition, and leads in the polls.

        Within the coalition, the former Goldman Sachs man Malcolm Turnbull is the rough equivalent of Canada’s Trudeau, and Tony Abbott is the rough equivalent of Stephen Harper. The latter was deposee for being about as popular with the electorate as a used nappy, and is presently engaged in undermining Turnbull.

        It was always a marriage of convenience, and it’s possible there could be a divorce.

        Neither faction is within a bull’s roar of Mumford’s meaning of sanity.

  5. andrewmarkmusic says :

    My prediction for Trudeau’s legacy will be millions of cardboard boxes for Canada’s seniors!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: