In the last federal election, I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Though I felt Harper was far-right on some social issues, I waived this for the sake of his competence with numbers. But I’m not angry the Liberals won. On the contrary. As a centrist, I believe society is better served when both parties get a turn. I’d rather see 10 years of left and 10 years of right before 20 years of either one—because that’s how our system gets to the centre.
We simply haven’t evolved to the point where all parties “manage from the middle.” So instead of long serving centrist parties that sometimes take from the left and sometimes take from the right, we get wild swings of one way or the other. One team shoves its ideology down our throats, then the opposing side takes the field and reverses the controversial bits but leaves what they should have passed when they were in charge. This all-left, all-right style does sorta produce centrist rule but it’s disruptive and most people don’t like it. Business definitely doesn’t like it—they prefer slow and gradual change.
But enough of this centrist stuff, what do I think of Justin? Two things: he’s an intellectual lightweight and his Prime Ministership will be of great importance.
Since he has none of his dad’s philosopher king capabilities, his intellectual skills are suitable only for consensus-style management—and this style will, for the very first time, be put to the national test. The article on Modern Decision Making explains the pitfalls of the consensus model, concluding that it’s a combination of the two styles that works best. Within this government, it will be the role of somebody else to perform the duties of suffering, responsibility, nursing, and consistency—not the PM.
But who? When George W was around, everyone knew Dick Cheney was pulling the strings. So who’s pulling Justin? The answer is a committee. And that’s what’s interesting. For the first time in history we’re going to be managed by a committee. Now let me be the first to say this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it’s a coming of time. We’ve been highly educating people in this country for over 60 years and may have arrived at a point where we no longer defer to an expert. It’s group rule.
At the beginning I explained why I voted for Harper. I said that despite my opinion of his negatives, I was willing to vote for his positives. But since Trudeau’s election, I haven’t heard anyone say, “though Justin’s not a genius, we had to make a change.” People feel sufficiently confident that, collectively, we can do this and that there’s nothing wrong with Justin—he’s just like us.
Trudeau is a repercussion of mass education and a further peg in the female style of management. Staunch conservatives aren’t afraid of the liberal ideology—we’ve had it before. They’re afraid of being guided by an airhead. They liken it to a company overrun by staff or a family being run by the kids. But these committee people are neither employees nor kids. They’re professionals who’ve been successful in their former lives and aren’t new to the concept of being a boss.
Justin Trudeau will not be an exceptional Prime Minister but this country is. And what he represents about Canada is a new belief system that says we’re intelligent people who care about one another, and not a bunch of trolls needing to be led. Personally, I’m going to sit back and watch this unfold. I’m not going to be a sour-grape, sore loser and complain. I’m going to watch, witness, and evaluate whether my country has attained the ability to almost govern itself.
I have to tell you, Justin, I’m looking forward to the ride. (And I wish you well.)