It makes sense for potential liberal leaders to think
carefully about whether they’re the right age to apply.
(Age is less important for conservatives. They’re not
elected for their energy and are presumed to have precocious ears for the
wisdom of their elders.)
The Liberal Party of Canada, too, must be especially careful.
It’s been hurt seriously for relying too much on the past and, recently, for
choosing a leader with too little experience.
The two Trudeaus of Canadian politics have quiet, different birthday
challenges. Candidate Pierre Trudeau was crowding 50 during the youth cult
of the late 60s; his son has just made it past 40, as the Baby Boom
retires. The elder’s youthfulness safely survived his first election. His son’s
youth—in the age of “dangers lapping at the shores of Canada”—is already being
raised as an issue.
Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe
and Mail brutally fleshes out a deeper problem:
“But isn’t it strange that a man
who will turn 41 in December is considered too young to lead a party? Pierre
Elliott Trudeau was only nine years older when he won the Liberal crown in
1968. What this indicates is that, indeed, Justin Trudeau exudes juvenile
charm, lightness and immaturity, as if he were not actually approaching middle
age, well past the age of Peter Pan.”
Click on: www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/is-justin-trudeau-really-the-liberals-best-option/article4365181/
We use age to help us decide whether someone—at a distance—is
“grown up.” Today, 40 isn’t as conclusive as it once was.
Justin Trudeau’s credibility, therefore, will largely depend
on how his potential candidacy is viewed by colleagues in Ottawa. In desperate times, party strategists who
just visit often get it wrong.
To complicate matters, however, we can’t know in advance how
any grown up will grow—or not—in power. That mystery, it seems likely, will
hang over all the candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment