Hugh Mackenzie
There are days when I fear for democracy. In Canada, the seeds are still mostly below the surface, but they are there. In the United States, our immediate neighbour, the issue is in full flight. When the cult of personality transcends the facts, when people stop caring about the truth, indeed when they revise it and when they ignore serious character flaws in order to protect a certain ideology, there is real trouble ahead.
This is not about partisan politics although many will try to make it so. When an individual in power becomes more important than the people they serve, when power for the sake of power alone becomes an aphrodisiac, it doesn’t really matter what political party you belong to. It occurs on both the left and the right when an opportunity arises to let it happen.
That is the time we must be most vigilant if we really value democracy. That is the time we must stand up and speak out, even if it involves an individual or political party we generally support. Otherwise we are nothing but a bunch of sheep and we all know where they end up.
There is no one less like a sheep than Liz Cheney, a conservative, a Republican member of congress and the daughter of a former vice president of the United States. She is one of very few people in her party who have stood up against the big lie that Donald Trump actually won the last presidential election. She correctly blamed him for the insurrection on January 6, as did many of her Republican colleagues, until Donald Trump ordered them to speak out of the other side of their mouths and they humbly obeyed. For them, cult culture trumped reality. Pun intended.
Liz Cheney is a pariah in her own party for daring to speak the raw truth, for standing up for principle rather than for an individual who has hijacked the Republican party, and for refusing to bow down to a cult culture of praise for Donald Trump that ignores reality and challenges the democratic process. She must be very lonely.
But she is also very important. Cheney may, for now, be a voice in the wilderness but she symbolizes the need for truth, honesty, and transparency in government which is in great danger of disappearing from the conservative movement in the United States. Millions of people there today are willing to support Trump’s claim that he won the last election, even though all evidence is to the contrary.
The real tragedy, the clear and present danger, is that most people who support Donald Trump and the movement he has created know the truth—deep down they know the truth. But the truth is less important than their allegiance to a single individual, to their fear of crossing him, and for what they believe Donald Trump can do for them. When you think about it, this is history repeating itself and it is very dangerous.
I probably have many of you in agreement with me to here. But now, let’s get to Canada. Never here, you may say, this couldn’t happen here. Well, yes, it could, and as mentioned above, the seeds are planted.
As tragic as the COVID-19 pandemic is, it is also a political opportunity. Even Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has attested to this. It happens that the Liberals are in power right now, so the opportunity falls to them. If the Conservatives or the New Democrats held government, they would have had the same “opportunity” and likely would have used it. But it is the Liberals who are there, and it is the Liberals who are using it to solidify their power around Justin Trudeau.
Let’s first look at the cult issue. Lorrie Goldstein, a veteran journalist, said this recently: “…In my 40 or so years of covering politics, I’ve never seen anything similar to the cult of personality that surrounds Justin Trudeau compared to any other Canadian prime minister, including his father. In some (not all) media as well.”
Clearly, there is a culture of personality that surrounds Justin Trudeau. Whether or not it surpasses that of his father is another question. But he has gotten away with much, both by the media and by a large segment of the general public, and one has to wonder why. Is it simply, as in the United States, that people don’t like the other guys and are therefore willing to put up with decisions and behaviour they would not otherwise tolerate? That, in my view, is when it becomes dangerous.
I had a glimpse of this last week. I wrote my article on Justin Trudeau’s record as a self-described feminist. I know of a number of people who read Listen Up regularly and who are left of centre in their political thinking and are also dedicated feminists. I know what some of them think about Trudeau’s record on women’s issues, most especially related to matters surrounding sexual abuse in the military because I have heard from them privately and it isn’t good.
But not one of these very fine people, some of whom I am privileged to have as friends, saw fit to comment on this aspect of Trudeau’s record, even though I am sure it is of great importance to them. There were a few comments, but none of them dealt with the issue I was writing about, and that is Trudeau’s record as a feminist. It is difficult not to conclude that they were reluctant to come out and be critical of Justin Trudeau on this issue when they would otherwise be inclined to support and defend him.
I find this, as small of an example as it is, concerning. To me, it is far more important to hold those whom you support accountable for their actions than it is to be critical of those who you do not support. The only way to do that is to stand up and speak out. Otherwise, the person becomes more important than the policy.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Trudeau government has attempted a number of things to solidify their power. At the outset, they introduced a Bill in which was buried a clause to give them absolute power on pandemic issues without reference to Parliament until 2022. Had they a majority instead of a vigilant opposition, they would have gotten away with it. And then there is Bill C-10, parts of which promote the possibility of censorship and the suppression of free speech. As well, deep in their budget was a clause to regulate how we must act during an election campaign. All scary stuff when it comes to protecting democracy, not to mention giving government too much power.
No matter who the government is, we need to speak up about these things. It doesn’t mean we have to vote for the other guy. It does mean that we should insist on principled, honest government from whoever is in power. It also means that we reject the cult of personality, demand accountability, and place our emphasis on the truth, transparency, and sound governance.
In Canada, we may be a long way from what is happening in the United States, but we are not immune to it. If you look for it, subtle as it may be (after all, we are Canadians), it is there to be seen.
Democracy is a precarious thing. If you believe in our way of life, the freedoms we enjoy, then as imperfect as it is, we need to protect it at all costs.
That means standing up when things are wrong.
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc. and enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Thank you, Mr. Mackenzie; these additional comments are helpful to me. I am pro “a clause that would make any deliberate misstatements during an election campaign illegal”. Haven’t we seen enough of that from the south? If this is can prove to be extra assurance, bravo!
I think back to the misstatements made by TC concerning the supposed agreement from the head of Stats Can about the shortened census forms. The Stats Can head resigned in protest that he did not say was required of him and could not agree with. Yet TC implied the head was in full agreement. Mind you, that was not during election campaign, but during the governing SH government. If it would be useful to provide a source, I will do so.
Actually, Ms. Kear, I did provide specifics about my concerns related to Bill C-10 in my article. Originally, individuals like you were exempted from CRTC regulation or censorship but this exemption was removed by the Trudeau government. Meaning a government-appointed body can censor your online contributions. As well, there is the matter of the Liberal budget which contains a clause that would make any deliberate misstatements during an election campaign illegal. Libel laws already cover that but now government, any future government, will be able to prosecute comments during an election they don’t like and can’t be proven by hard evidence. It really will limit your ability to express the opinions you have which to me is a suppression of free speech.
We do seem to be working this ‘democracy’ item and I’m pretty sure that’s good. Open discussion on government is something many nations can’t boast. And references to Bill C-10 have crept into the conversation, to the extent one comment asked if someone could point out specific parts of the bill that are objectionable!
Have you ever read one of these things? In it’s entirety? I am in awe of those who have. I haven’t; pretty dry, dizzying prose I’m told, that makes you need a rest and a cold one. And I understand that the bill is only a frame-work, bare bones to which the body will be added later. After consultations. I hate these things. They are akin to paying for something before you knew you needed it, or even what it was.
The government states the bill doesn’t impinge on free speech, although even the Hon. David Lametti acknowledged “the charter statement found the charter right to free speech ‘might be engaged’.”
What does that mean? Are our ‘spidy senses’ tingling yet?
I’m sure there are lots of reasons for the CRTC to modify its regulations since the internet that we now enjoy (or not) didn’t exist as such in the mid 90’s when the mandate was last updated.
But there are those out there , who have examined this bill and state that it is too open ended. The stick will be too large and we are wary that even a toddler with a stick will eventually hit someone with it.
Let’s hope that we still have this opportunity to POST COMMENT after the CRTC gets their new stick.
Mr. Wilkins, we all fear at some level for Canada’s future -cultural, economic, research & development, climate, for example.
What specifically in the new legislation Bill C-10 concerns you? What democratic and free speech principles do you refer to? Unfortunately, Mr. Mackenzie has not provided the specifics I have asked for.
Is your concern general or because there are certain clauses worrisome?
With Justin Trudeau, it’s about image and power, all the time. Nothing is out of bounds, including sacrificing democratic and freedom of speech principles. In his world, budgets balance themselves, no debt is too large and no progressive global cause unworthy. I fear for Canada’s future.
Mr. Hugh Holland. I find the idea of party members reaching a ‘consensus’ rather amusing. Nod or signal yes in agreement with policy or you will find yourself sitting as an independent. Party leaders seem to find it too difficult to get their head around ‘free choice’ or ‘ vote of conscience’.
All parties deal with dissent in the same way. Drew Barnes, Todd Lowen, Robin Luff and others have been dumped by disgruntled party leaders. We all remember Jody Wilson-Raybold.
“Out damn spot!”to quote Lady Macbeth.
I wonder if someone is assigned to watch as they clean out their desk and then escort them to the ‘Independent’ section.
Just saying.
Reply to Anna-Lise Kear You talk about criminal actions of D T but funny you never mention any of the shady stuff our present Liberal Govt has been getting away with. But I guess they are both ok because nothing has been proven in a court of law as yet. Maybe time will tell a different story.
The Liberal party is a just group of candidates that were able to reach consensus on a set of balanced ideas that voters deemed would address today’s most pressing problems better than any of the other parties. The members respect and work well with their leader and vice-versa. Recent poles indicate even more voters like what the Liberal’s are doing than during the last election. Of course the other parties don’t like that. Maybe some day another party will be able to unite behind a set of relevent ideas. That is a healthy democracy working as it should. That does not fit the definition of a cult of personality.
I was interested in the comment Mr. Johnson posted. Dissing ‘Dief the chief’. It is history, but I’ m sure one can cite politicos of all stripes as tyrants and bullies and the architects of hard times
My Dad always talked of the depression, his youth, and that mess was shared by prime ministers of both parties.
The most recent deep dive in the world economy, 2008, wasn’t the fault of Stephen Harper; the Canadian economy doesn’t have that clout and we aren’t leading the rising world economy of the last few years. We’re just ride the wave.
This is a different time and place for sure, but I bet old Dief would have clutched his chest if anyone had told him a Canadian government could run up a deficit of somewhere between 350 and 500 million dollars. In one year! The Diefenbaker government tried to bury its’ problems under money and does that seem familiar?
So much for history, but isn’t the expression ‘what have you done for me lately?’ We wait anxiously for the next billion to drop.
Segue a moment and I think Hugh might just remember John Diefenbaker since Hugh has a few moons on me and I remember ‘Dief’ just fine.
Social distance everyone and here’s to the other side of this virus; trillion dollar deficit and all.
Mr. Vowels, thank you for your comments, much appreciated for the differentiation you mentioned.
My guess is that we are speaking at cross-purposes about what defines leadership, success, and the progress of a country. I believe people do like DT because he gets angry and gets others to get angry; he narrows in on their grievances (and some are legitimate) and then sets himself up as their only “saviour”.
When we look at the “saviour” complex, we look at his character, actions, speeches, and their results on those who follow him. We can know him by what his followers do, say, and how they copy him. He has promised to deliver them from all their ills, but he has yet to meet the criminal charges for breaking the laws of the land (quite a list). So, they wanted a “saviour”, but they got a criminal con man (albeit a brilliant one!).
Reply to Edward Johnson Please don’t get me wrong I did not like Diefenbaker even a little bit. But if i’m not mistaken he did one thing I and a lot of other people in the home building industry liked and that was he brought in a winter works program that paid a builder $500.00 for a home that was started after I think Nov first. Up until then no builder built anything in winter so most of us were out of work until spring. Once builders found out it was possible to build in winter things changed. About the only good thing he did.
A very well written commentary Hugh, void of political preference and objectively bringing the facts to light.
Hopefully Canadians believe that there is not an absolute right or wrong political side whether one is a progressive or conservative, what is at the bedrock of our tradition is maintaining the integrity, precedence and full transparency of our legislative institutions.
It does feel like democracy is under attack with many of the rising global powers having authoritarian leadership that align their version of the truth to meet their agenda.
The disgraceful conduct being demonstrated by the majority of Republicans in Congress in wilfully supporting “the big lie” can only serve to continue to divide their country and to disenfranchise too many against democracy serving them best.
Whatever our personal politics in Canada hopefully we will hold our legislators to the highest standards and vote those politicians out of office who breach our trust – no matter what Party they represent.
Hugh, I read this column and I can’t agree with your rather far-fetched assessment of Prime Minister Trudeau. I think he’s doing a pretty good job in tough circumstances. Next week Canada will pass the US in terms of percentage of population with at least one shot of vaccine. And our ‘deaths per hundred thousand population’ are dramatically lower than the US, UK, and notably the Israeli experience. And that’s in spite of the disastrous performance of provincially regulated eldercare homes.
Now if you want to talk about the cult of personality, let me tell you about a genuine demagogue. You’re too young to know anything about this, but I grew up when Canada was held under the thrall of a true tyrant. A Prime Minister who, with his party sycophants, ruled like an absolute dictator. He held hundreds of thousands under his spell – if you look back at the newspapers of that day you’ll see young people as young as twelve years old who were captivated. (No doubt they’ve grown up to recognize the error of their ways.)
That man was the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker. He drove our economy to the brink of destruction, but the deeply perceptive Canadian electorate hurled him from office. To this day I meet people who were alive at that time who tell me: “Always remember- Tory times are hard times.”
Truer words were never spoke.
Anna-Lise Kear
Did you read what i wrote or do you just hate Mr Trump that bad . How many people in the U.S. have told you they are very happy with there new President and everything he has done this far. All I did was state the fact that the U.S. Economy was a lot better under Trump than it is now. All I’ll say.
Mr. Mackenzie; there are political opportunities all around. Even in opposition, there is solidifying of power, donors, etc. Do not assume that because I have not written criticism of JT that I fall under the spell of populism. DT has an Achilles’ heel, he wants to be liked too! Neither MH nor federal SH cared at all whether each was popular with citizens. So, perhaps there is some value in wanting to be somewhat popular with the citizens one governs? At least not despised.
Perhaps some regulation about how we act during an election campaign is in order, given the divisive populism perpetrated by DT and his insatiable narcissism for attention and praise. He will say and do whatever he has to fill his deep-seated personal needs and mental illness.
Could you be more specific about the regulation content and what it is you disagree with concerning election campaigning?
Mr. Vowels; what more can I say about DT? He is mentally-emotionally unstable, blatantly autocratic, and self-serving. He is the best scam salesman we are likely to see in a bit, because he plays on fear, anger, and greed. Just ask those he has defrauded, those he has molested! High character is out of the question with this needy toddler.
When I look back to when I first cast a vote, my idea of democracy was rather simplistic I suppose. But the idea of selecting someone to represent me instilled a sense of power. Cast a vote and if the candidate secured a majority they would become a member of the government; one that represented most of the population. These people would discus issues and arrive at a consensus that would become policy.
Today the process of election is much the same but the concepts of ‘discus’ and ‘consensus’ have been replaced by ‘presentation’ and ‘spin’. Back-room policy makers (likely not even elected) presenting to the party in power a platform which doesn’t necessarily represent the voters, but a path that should get the party re-elected.
I think what we now have is an elected dictatorship, because now if you express an opinion other than the party line, you will be cast out. Party members shall point or grunt or signal yes to indicate their acceptance of party policy or suffer the consequence. There are many examples of late of just such people, the flotsam and jetsam of our present system.
Back in the day there was the phrase ‘Peace, Order and Good government’ supposedly indicating what our government hoped to do. Simple, basic achievements that would benefit the country.
We have peace. I appreciate the fact that it has come at high coast. Order? There is little that is ‘methodical, proper or harmonious’ in the politics of today. Good government! Not even close. It’s disturbing when we can’t even manage two out of three.
The very people we are electing don’t get the chance to voice our concerns and are failing us. Or are we just complacent, having come to expect so little?
I’m at a loss to understand why Hugh is so down on president Trump as a man I can’t say I like him all that much but as a president my opinion is he did a good job the economy was doing great unemployment was at an all time low the price of gas was low and America was self sufficient with oil for the first time in years all this to me say’s he was doing a good job for the people. Maybe I’m missing something but most of the family and friends down there that I talk to agree with me. As far as the election goes I think we should wait for all the audits are complete then see just what the outcome is.
Well done Hugh. You have outlined a political environment that we must not only be aware of but to discuss within our selves but to question openly and to insist that the elected political electorate answer openly.