Brian Mulroney is no longer a household name having served his two tumultuous terms but his legacy haunts the Canadian political landscape, salting the earth, fouling political waters and clouding the future. Depending on how you look at it he was a stunning failure or brilliant success. For anybody who believed in a dynamic future for this country he was a stunning failure. On the other hand, for those who wanted Canada neutered as a nation(the continentalists) he was a brilliant success.
Mulroney was a vindictive politician arriving after the Liberals had a long and successful run in power. Finally, Canada’s Progressive Conservatives had acquired a majority government- and not just any majority, the largest ever. Canadians had sent a massage we wanted change and we got it! Mulroney was soon to show that he was not a moderate conservative and maybe even an anti-conservative as he set about to alter the fundamental definition of the country. Being in office was his greatest binge of all, recklessly tampering with both the economy and the constitution.
Even though Canada enjoyed a healthy and mutually beneficial free trade with the US, Mulroney was duped into the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement, later to become NAFTA. In the wink of an eye Canada went from being a branch plant economy to a captive economy and resource slave to the US. NAFTA has really nothing to do with free trade. It is really a constitutional bill of rights for corporate exploitation. It was a huge step forward in formalizing the corporate welfare state and marked the death knell of the social welfare state. While many Canadians saw from the outset the NAFTA was an economic Trojan horse, Americans on their side of the border were only later to have similar concerns.
Mulroney was totally oblivious to the fact that his political ambitions far out exceeded his political talents. He was willing to mindlessly roll the dice without forethought or consideration of consequence. Where he had been awarded tremendous political success and opportunity his eight years in power were endless testimony to his squalid inability to exercise power with anything resembling equanimity. Given the opportunity to establish a conservative dynasty he was a pathetic flash-in-the-pan squandering his fifteen minutes of fame; definitely and unwittingly preferring infamy.
He blundered from a controversial free trade debate to a constitutional donnybrook, which deeply divided the country pursued by his government for partisan gain. In order to establish his daunting conservative coalition he took known separatists into the party as winning in Quebec had always been the key to Liberal success. To break this hold on Quebec he had to make deals with separatists he couldn’t keep and when he couldn’t deliver on either Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords, Lucien Bouchard, one of those separatists stormed out of the House of Commons and formed the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc, as a separatist party, has now taken up permanent residence in the House of Commons and denied the Quebec vote to either Harper’s CPC or the hapless Liberals. Where Canada once had an effective two party system the political dynamic has now been warped to where, we are, thanks to Mulroney’s seditious constitutional machinations, facing endless minority governments. Canada’s asymmetrical federalism has been pushed to a new and possibly chronic level of dysfunctionalism.
In the election of 1993 Mulroney left office in disgrace. He destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party and became, again unwittingly, a founding father of the Reform Party. Where he was so nimble at accusing Trudeau’s Liberals of fostering Western alienation, his tenure saw the founding of a Western separatist party (in response to his endless pandering to Quebec) and ultimately the Reform Party, which mutated into the Alliance Party and thanks again to the witless Peter MacKay became the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada) an alleged reuniting of Canada’s conservatives.
MacKay, winning the leadership of a forlorn PCP, and willing to betray a commitment made to fellow leadership candidate David Orchard saw fit to go into coalition with a dead-ended Alliance Party led by none other than Stephen Harper. Harper’s Alliance was doomed to political oblivion as it was trapped in the West with no appeal to Ontario voters-the key to any federal success and the possibility of being a national party. MacKay, instead of rebuilding the PCP, threw Harper a life line and the two parties united to form what was claimed to be a coalition, but this was the big lie. Harper’s Alliance was a different strain of conservativism, a long way from Canada’s unique Red Tory tradition, and more akin to US Republicanism. MacKay was most accommodating and allowed Harper’s thugs to dominate this so-called coalition and purge Progressive Conservatives from the party. A uniquely Canadian conservative tradition was dead.
The CPC, of suspect pedigree, born of cynical political expedience, are among the reasons Canadians distrust this party and are only willing to grant it the stingiest of minority governments.
Jean Chrétien has never been so gracious as to acknowledge the huge political debt he owes Brian Mulroney. Had Mulroney not been so accommodating as to split the Right Chrétien never would have slid to such easy victories during his tenure as prime minister. Chretien and Paul Martin were more than accommodating in propelling this new CPC party to power through their ongoing dispute over Martin’s ascension to the leadership. Once he got the leadership Martin was so inept as to walk right into the Quebec Sponsorship Scandal destroying his party’s fortunes before the eyes of a dumfounded Canadian public.
Harper’s ascendance to the PMO is one of the great political flukes of all times. Leading a newly minted party, short on talent and of questionable pedigree assuming high office was suddenly within his grasp thanks to the deplorable legacy of Brian Mulroney and a helping hand from suicidal Liberals. He assumed office by default, as the Canadian electorate faced a full slate of impractical and undesirable non-choices. Such is the bitter harvest of chronic political ineptitude.
The sad fact is that Harper does not need a majority to do in the country. Political gridlock, traceable to the Mulroney era and the vacant Opposition benches serve his dark purpose well. What Mulroney started, Harper, his Frankstein, can be entrusted to finish. He knows too well the present suspension of democracy guarantees his political survival and his wicked agenda and he is more than willing to exploit this situation ruthlessly.
Harper, like Mulroney before him, is a national wrecking ball incapable of serving high public office for the good of the nation but rather serving an insatiable egocentrism, destructive to both himself and the public he treats with contemptuous indifference. The damage politicians do lives long after them and Mulroney’s deplorable legacy paved the way for Harper’s monstrous behavior. By destroying his own party and a Canadian conservative tradition-thus crippling a salubrious federal two-party system- he left the door wide open to opportunists and self-serving ideologues itching to fill this political vacuum.
A spring election would be a further insult to Canadians.
As American activist Philip Berrigan once stated:
If voting made any difference it would be illegal.
… Never so true as in present day Canada.

So where to start. Hmmmm.
Do you really believe that the way to a "dynamic future" was a bloated, paternalistic state and a culture of entitlement? It was the Trudeau's (un-)Just Society that Mulroney sought to neuter, except he never really had the courage or integrity to do the job properly. He was still a slave to Keynesianism, which despite its theoretical soundness became, in the hands of Canadian politicians, nothing more than an intellectual justification for parish pump politics. In that sense, Mulroney wasn't nearly enough of a departure from Trudeau and his tax-gulping unitarist dystopia.
Unlike Trudeau, who sought to hold Canada together through sheer force of will, like some Western Tito, Mulroney actually sought to accomodate the various regions and interests in the country. You're right in that he failed to recognize and address Western Canada's legitimate and longstanding grievances, but his benign neglect for the West was certainly an improvement over the malevolent disdain shown for that region by Trudeau and his thuggish crony Chretien.
And as for the death of what you call "Canada's unique Red Tory tradition", I say good riddance to bad statist rubbish. Disraeli and Macdonald are relics of their time. The Liberals became illiberal during the Pearson era, specifically following the Kingston Conference. That ushered in a period characterised by what I call the "Morningside Consensus" after the Kierans-Camp-Lewis panel on that radio show. Canadians had about as much real choice during that era as voters in a Soviet election. All three parties had basically the same ideas. Our only choice was over the personnel. But what made the Red Tories so particularly distasteful was their social elitism, which stood in contrast to their economic egalitarianism.
Maybe what I call conservatism is what you would call liberalism or libertarianism, but I really don't care about the labels. What I care about is that there is now a major party in Canadian politics (the governing party, in fact) that truly believes in individual liberty and a competitive market economy. Canadians should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, and not as some politican, bureaucrat, professor, media commentator, poet or "philosopher king" would have us live.
And if Mulroney is a founder of the Reform Party, however unwittingly, then Canadians owe him a great debt. Without the Reform Party, there would have been no Paul Martin, Deficity Slayer, nor would there have been a Clarity Act. And without Reform, there would be no Conservative Party as we know it today. Thanks Brian.
Stephen Harper is one of the best Prime Ministers Canada has ever had. I just hope he finally gets a majority and can complete his disassembly of the Trudeau nanny state.
Wow, what an imagination you have.
What I care about is that there is now a major party in Canadian politics (the governing party, in fact) that truly believes in individual liberty and a competitive market economy.
Two points (among many) agin you, Indie:
1] Where's the individual liberty in his cabinet, and party in general? Is this an example of "do as I say, but not as I do?"
2] Where's the competitive market economy with his eager embrace of record high deficits? Is this an example of extreme hypocrisy/expediency?
As far as Lyin' Brian is concerned, he should be in jail with Schreiber.
However, I will grant you that the "Liberals" are no better......
Wow, what an imagination you have.
What I care about is that there is now a major party in Canadian politics (the governing party, in fact) that truly believes in individual liberty and a competitive market economy.
Two points (among many) agin you, Indie:
1] Where's the individual liberty in his cabinet, and party in general? Is this an example of "do as I say, but not as I do?"
2] Where's the competitive market economy with his eager embrace of record high deficits? Is this an example of extreme hypocrisy/expediency?
As far as Lyin' Brian is concerned, he should be in jail with Schreiber.
However, I will grant you that the "Liberals" are no better......
Better for a PM to micromanage his cabinet/caucus/party and the bureaucracy than to micromanage and our lives, like Trudeau, Chretien, Rock, Copps, Dalton McGuinty, etc. tried so hard to do.
As for your second point, it's not hypocrisy, but it certainly is expediency, driven by minority government politics. Chretien and Martin (the former especially) were by nature tax-and-spend types, but circumstances (particularly pressure by the Reform Party, not to mention the bond agencies) forced them to be belt-tighteners.
I cringed at the return of the Keynesian money cannon, but was at least comforted by the notion that the party firing it was wiser and more disciplined than its previous operators.
And as for Ruston's angry diatribe above, I'll give him some time to clean the spittle off his screen before responding.
If there were to be a "Vive drinking game", it would have to include taking a shot every time one reads "banker-corporate fascists" in Ruston's posts.
What's the matter indy, can't stick to the point? Sounds like you've already been drinkin. Don't hate me for calling a spade a spade, and a sociopath a fascist.Just the same, if Harper or Mulroney were truly humanitarians, I'd call it just the same. I don't believe in beating around the bush. But I believe the Bush's should be beaten!
You've calmed down a bit. Good.
You can focus on "beating the bushes", while I'll do whatever small things I can on my side to make sure Canada is never ruled by another Trudeau or Trudeau wannabe.
And I'll say it again - Stephen Harper, best PM ever.
I suppose that's because you have no idea what is involved in Keynesian economics. All governments practice it, The Libs and Cons out of self-centred expediency, the NDP out of an interest in furthering the economic well-being of the actual people of Canada.
But all is well, as it seems several members of the Conservative Party will be going to jail for their arrogance in breaking laws.
We didn't have free trade, and we still don't have true free trade. The FTA strengthened our position and became an even larger part of the NA manufacturing base as compared to the US. Before you lament the loss of manufacturing jobs, be aware that those were lost to China, not the US or Mexico and would have happened regardless of the FTA. The FTA protected many cultural items (print press, TV, etc...) while providing astounding access to the US marketplace. This acess was so awesome that the critical Libs decided (correctly) to push even further and created NAFTA. The reason for the unparalleled Canadian prosperity in the 1990's was due in large part to these two agreements.
"a constitutional donnybrook, which deeply divided the country "
With this statement I partially agree. Meech and Charlottown were both debacles for the country. Mulroney was thus seen by the West as pandering to Quebec and the failure of juggling both balls (Quebec nationalism and Western alieniation) allowed both to come crashing down around his ears. I don't doubt that Mulroney conceived these agreements with the thought of creating a better society, but I also suspect that he and his cabinet wanted this out of some hubris as well to one-up Trudeau. I don't fault him personally for the thought of these agreements, I do fault him for sloppy leadership in properly explaining them to the country and the closed door meetings in which they were conceived which gave the impression (probably incorrectly) that there was something to hide. He should have been more astute and read the tea leaves of public opinion better. Between these and the Airbus scandal, he was bound for defeat. Dropping of the two previously mentioned balls led to Reform and BQ... which lead in turn to the abysmal showing at the polls. Much of that can be laid at Mulroney's feet.
You left out that Mulroney created the GST. Between the prosperity that the two FTA's brought and the taxes that the GST collected, the Libs were able to do absolutely nothing for 13 years and still balance the budget and start to pay down the debt (kudo's to them - seriously without sarcasm). But they were able to do that due to the foundation that Mulroney laid economically.
You also left out that Mulroney was pivitol in leading the Commonwealth and the world into the regime change that took place in South Africa. Apartheid ended, in large part due to the efforts of the Mulroney government. Mulroney stood up to both Regan and Thatcher on the issue of South Africa. He wasn't without his faults on the matter, his support was not always nequivocal, but by any measure he did more to end apartheid than any other western leader.
You also left out the Airbus scandal. On this issue, Mulroney was a greedy idiot. I'm sure you can add to the vitrol to be heaped upon him regarding this issue, so I will leave that in your capable hands. I will add that I'm sure that it is all deserved and that I will be in agreement with you.
Mulroney may not have been the best leader we've ever had, but to state that his legacy was "deplorable" is going way too far. He had faults (like greed and hubris), but he also had strengths (like knowing how to build relationships with allies and turn them to our needs). On the whole, I'd say he did an OK job. If it were not for Meech and Charlottetown, I would have said he did a great job and then screwed up at the very end with Airbus.
While I won't go as far as Indy with saying that Harper is the best PM ever, I would say that he is doing a pretty good job so far. Despite global recession, we are largely OK, despite our deep ties to a struggling US. His biggest flaw in my eyes is his deep hatred of the Libs. It blinds him to alternatives. Unless he can steal an idea and make it his own, he can never agree to work with the opposition or any of their ideas, which is too bad but not damning. Thankfully, most of his (and his government's) ideas are pretty good.
Raising age of consent
tossing out 2 or 3 for 1 pretrial custody times
killing the income trusts and saving taxpayers BILLIONS
Making Canadians a profit in providing banks additional funds
Saving thousands of Canadian automotive jobs by matching US bailout packages
Taking a principled stand on China
Those are just a few that come to mind
Everyone else is paying more tax because when federal and provincial governments make cuts over the years, the costs get downloaded to municipalities who raise their property taxes. Harris in Ontario tried this bait and switch. Unfortunately, people swallowed it.
You seem to have a selective memory. It was Paul Martin who 'balanced the books' by downloading federal expenses to the provinces. This in turn spun off as provinces downloading expenses to the municipalities.
If you think back to the economic crash in the US and the bail outs, it was the Leberals and NDP that were screaming for bigger and faster bailouts in Canada. With a minority government the Conservatives had to move farther in that direction than they might have done with a majority. Now of course both NDP and the Liberals are complaining out the other side of their mouths. It is what parties in opposition do.
Earlier you had mentioned fuel prices, but blamed the high prices in western Canada on the current prty in power. It has nothing to do with whoever is in power. Lougheed pushed to have Canada price its crude based on the world market and not an artificial benfit to Eastern Canada market. Trudeau pushed in the NEP and overnight destroyed the economy of Alberta and investment in the Canadian oil patch. Under the NEP the number of wells fell from 12000 to less than 4000 and stayed they are until the NEP was dismantled. The year after the number of wells increased to over 12,000 and then quickly rose to over 20,000 per year. The source of the gasoline pump problems is there are only 7 refineries in Western Canada and all pipes move the product out with no alternative source. All of them are running at maximum capacity so that if one goes down due to an unscheduled breakdown there is not enough remianing supply to service the demand. The refiners are increasing capacity on the existing plants by making investments of 100 to 400 million. This does not cure the problem of a breakdown. That requires a whole new large refinery, which no one seems to want to spend the 20 billion to build. It is supply demand economics not political finagling.