Playing Chess with Trudeau

HERE'S MY TAKE

Raydio Pennings

Have you ever wished you could listen to Ray, rather than read him? Well, now you can, by hitting play on the audio version of Insights below.

Now, whether you're on a walk, cooking in the kitchen, or even commuting, you can hear Ray's Insights on demand!

You can also look back at previous issues of Insights by visiting the dedicated Insights blog right here.

The unfolding drama regarding the Liberal caucus revolt over the continued leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau is riveting for those of us wired to pay attention to political theatrics. I understand that for many other Canadians, it is a wearying saga that they hope will end soon, even as they recognize that the outcome matters for the country and their own lives.

What’s doubly tricky about this scenario is that we only can figure out what’s happening on this political chessboard by learning about it second-hand – most of us don’t have a direct view of the board to make our own analysis. Before concluding how this chess match might unfold, it’s probably useful to review a few of the basics of political leadership chess.

• The prime minister can retain his post only as long as he maintains the support of the House of Commons. There’s no legal way for this caucus to force the prime minister to leave. MPs only have the power of persuasion and the power of voting non-confidence in the government.

• The 153 members of the Liberal caucus all were elected under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau. Thirty-seven are cabinet ministers (receiving a pay bump of around $100K and many perks); thirty-nine serve as parliamentary secretaries (a roughly $20K pay bump) and there are 29 parliamentary committee chairs (a roughly $14K pay bump). Most of these positions are at the discretion of the prime minister and the appointment requires political loyalty in return. That leaves only about 50 genuine backbench MPs. Speaking out against the prime minister probably means they have no chance of any of these positions (and at least half a dozen cabinet vacancies need to be filled soon due to impending retirements). If they speak out and Mr. Trudeau remains party leader in the next election, it will be extremely difficult for them to credibly run again as a local Liberal candidate.

• Wednesday’s three-hour-plus caucus meeting, according to second-hand reports, saw approximately 50 MPs speak. Media reports indicate about half of the speakers opposed the PM (almost exclusively backbenchers) and a similar number made arguments as to why the prime minister should stay on. Apparently, Prime Minister Trudeau mostly listened, took a few notes, and spoke both about the toll this has taken on him and his family and about how he might reflect on what he heard.

• News also emerged about a letter signed by 24 MPs asking for Prime Minister Trudeau’s resignation by October 28^th, which was read aloud and given to the prime minister (with the identity of the signatories removed it would seem). Meanwhile, Eddie Goldenberg, the long-time principal secretary to the Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, publicly asked the prime minister to step down. Prominent Liberals are also circulating a petition against the prime minister directed toward the party executive. In all of these cases, there are demands and deadlines but it is unclear what the consequences of a missed deadline might be.

All this, combined with polls that suggest over 57% of Canadians in Liberal-held ridings want someone other than Mr. Trudeau to lead the Liberals in the next election, expose the weak Liberal position on Canada’s political chessboard. However, just as a surprise checkmate wins a chess game regardless of the board’s position, pre-election polls are not a guarantee of victory. Mr. Trudeau’s defenders have argued that an improving economy, a possible re-election of U.S. President Trump, the “success” that Mr. Trudeau had in negotiating a respectable trade agreement with the Americans during the last Trump administration, and Mr. Trudeau’s charisma and campaigning skills may combine to provide a stronger showing and possible victory next year. (A Poilievre mistake or two would help Liberal odds and that is certainly in the realm of possibility.) Besides, if it’s not Mr. Trudeau leading the Liberals, there is no obvious alternative leader who doesn’t also bring along different political baggage.

Regardless of the game’s presumed outcome, unless Mr. Trudeau concedes, the game continues. Mr. Trudeau responded to Wednesday’s ultimatum within 18 hours; it is now the dissidents' move to show if their October 28th deadline is anything other than a bluff. As long as he avoids losing a vote in the House of Commons (and he may yet ask for the prorogation of Parliament to avoid the possibility of such votes for a time) he remains the prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party.

While I watch all the political maneuvering with popcorn in hand, part of me also listens with fascination to what this situation shows about leadership. The lessons in this drama apply to leadership in every sphere, not just politics. Let me briefly list several.

• The tools of power. I’ve mused in this space before that there are four ways to get others to do what you want them to do: coercion—threatening a negative consequence or promising a positive consequence to get compliance; position—leaning on the authority that flows from your office to get compliance; expertise—relying on the authority that flows from your knowledge to get compliance; or relationship—using loyalty to extract compliance. It’s impossible to parse the individual motives of Liberal MPs but it would appear Mr. Trudeau is maintaining his position primarily through coercion and relationship. Regardless, the prime minister has more tools at his disposal than do his opponents.

• The interplay between institutions and individuals. Being prime minister is to hold two institutional positions. The prime minister is the leader of the party that has the support of the House of Commons. Consequently, the prime minister is also the leader of Canada’s government. Rules govern the processes of filling these positions, but there are also deeply personal motives and consequences at stake. While it sounds tawdry to spell out the personal paycheque consequences for the Liberal caucus members, it would be naïve to pretend that these aren’t factors. Even for backbenchers, whenever an election happens, it will determine whether their base pay of around $200k will continue. For some, this is the best-paying job they will ever have; for others, it represents a cut in pay from what they were earning or might earn outside of politics. The outcome of this political chess game certainly will influence the career trajectory of most involved, whether their primary motivation is nobly contributing to the public good as they understand it (which, from my experience, is true of most politicians) or is the pay and perks (which, being human, is definitely a factor as well).

• Mission is contextual. The talking point for almost everyone leaving Wednesday’s caucus meeting was the importance of the Liberal Party as an alternative to Mr. Poilievre’s Conservatives. I don’t doubt that they sincerely believe there are priorities and values at play that are consequential to what they’d consider an “ideal” Canada. It is interesting to note that Mr. Goldenberg’s letter was entitled “Justin Trudeau’s Obligation to Canada,” making the argument that the real issue is the unity of the country (similar to the argument Mr. Trudeau’s former principal secretary Gerald Butts made in a piece I linked last week). Mr. Trudeau “should do all he can to be in a strong position to be available to take a leading role in speaking up for Canada in a possible Quebec independence referendum,” wrote Mr. Goldenberg. This was undoubtedly sincere advice, though critics also suggest it would appeal to Mr. Trudeau’s self-image as a messiah and a fighter. Biographies by journalists Stephen Maher and Paul Wells both portray Mr. Trudeau as a confident fighter who, when confronted, tends to dig in rather than step aside. It would seem worried Liberals may be trying to find a bigger fight than the next election to attract Mr. Trudeau’s attention.

The political chess game continues. While there is an ultimate timer in that the next election must happen by October 20, 2025, the next move is the prime minister’s. While political leadership games are by definition public, it is important to remember that the implications of those games involve real people. Careers are at stake. So is the government of the country. 

But Canadians also have the right to expect of MPs the courage of their convictions. That’s part of what they signed up for when they agreed to put their name on a ballot. It may be chess but it’s not just a game. Let’s grant some empathy and understanding through the process. Still, let’s also expect decisions that are made and defended with arguments about the public good, and not just the role and legacy of individual political players.

WHAT I’M READING

The Ties that Bind

A colleague passed on this Wall Street Journal article which highlights how thick community and family ties enable young Amish families to succeed economically. And they’re doing so in ways that many of their peers who have significantly more formal education are not. It’s framed as a case study to confirm the value of a “significant networking effect,” in this case, catalyzed by a religious and ethnic community. Work ethic and entrepreneurial ambition are key components, of course. However, the story is as much about community as well, not to mention the need for a network that both provides and requires investment as the key to economic growth.

Ready for Religion?

I tagged Ross Douthat’s column “Is the World Ready for a Religious Comeback?” before two regular readers drew it to my attention (hat tip and thanks – these links are always appreciated). The column is as much a review of three current books and forthcoming one (Douthat’s Believe scheduled for release in February 2025), all making the case in different ways that “the world seems primed for religious arguments in the same way it was primed for new atheists 20 years ago.”

A Car Seat Ghetto

A regular reader and friend drew my attention to Nathan Pinkoski’s substack where he observed that car seat regulations reflect a fragmentation in society over the place of children in it. In part responding to comments made on the U.S. election trail, Pinkoski analyzes the current context for making public, pro-family arguments.

Rationing Doctors

The long-standing problem of Canadians not having a family doctor (up to 6.5 million of us now) gets regular attention but we’ve seen little progress over the years. This week, a Quebec report suggesting a rationing of doctors’ visits for minor ailments by otherwise healthy people prompted a backlash. Medical experts rightly point out that regular family doctor visits help prevent more expensive subsequent healthcare costs. A Senate report urges an increase in doctor supply by funding residency spots for international medical graduates. The Ontario government appointed Dr. Jane Philpott, a former federal health minister, to propose solutions over the next five years.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

“Canadians cross the road in order to get to the middle” is an old joke. A recent Angus Reid Institute survey highlighted that almost half of Canadians feel that none of the available political options “really represent their views.” A full 47% identify with the middle of the political spectrum and say they “feel like a political orphan.” That context made this week’s Spark poll interesting which asked respondents to identify the four policy ideas that would most influence their vote. It is clear that economic issues are driving Conservative voters and that what separates them from the population as a whole are their views on climate change and health (including dental, pharma, and child care). Reducing immigration and health care are the two non-economic issues that rank high on the issue scale. Arguably, though, it is the economic implications of immigration that have elevated that particular issue.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Swift-Onomics

I’ll confess to not being swift in catching on to the music that is trendy. But just because I don’t get the attraction of Taylor Swift songs, it doesn't mean I'm ignorant about the sensation she is. A 34-year-old musician must be hitting some right notes to have acquired a net worth of over $1 billion. She seems in harmony with over 50% of the population who count themselves fans. A Globe and Mail feature this week informed me that a Swiftie spends an average of $1,500 US per event (in addition to the cost of concert tickets), a number five times the average of other concert-goers. She’ll do 150 or so concerts this year across five continents. 

Now, don’t blame me, but I spent a bit of time with Google. I’d be in trouble if anyone tried to engage me in an in-depth conversation, but I figured it would be mean not to mention at least a few of her song titles. I hope commenting on music via search engine results doesn’t prove to be an albatross on my credibility but it’s better than a blank space in this take-it-to-go section. I hope this gets me out of the woods and that there is no bad blood that flows from this somewhat off-tune wordplay. It will be less than a fortnight when I expect to be back in your inbox. Between now and then, let’s all just grin and shake it off.

See you again next Saturday morning.