Jean Chretien - The good kind of populist

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2018/jean-chretien-the-good-kind-of-populist/

Blue please, here's an excerpt.

 

Populism is getting a rough ride these days. Around the world, angry voices — sometimes intolerant and conspiratorial — are occupying political space and power. The underlying ideology, if there is one, rests on a bed of grievance and mistrust. Donald Trump comes to mind. But he is not alone. The least of the problems — but it is a problem nonetheless — is that populism is getting a bad rap.

Jean Chrétien was a proud populist, even though it brought him ridicule. To his critics, Chrétien’s populism was his excuse not to think deeply about the issues. Populism, they said, allowed Chrétien not to have a vision or ideology, not to look ahead; it gave him a way to skirt complex problems by offering simplistic solutions that appealed to the masses.

 

After Chrétien left office in 2003, historians and academics were quick to dismiss his leadership style and prime ministerial record. In Right Honourable Men (2004), the historian Michael Bliss wrote that Chrétien was “moderately competent and only moderately corrupt.” Peter C. Newman described Chrétien’s time in office as a baleful and listlessadministration — an interregnum — without a defining legacy. As English comedians mocked his thick accent, critics in Quebec cringed at how he mangled the French language and accused him of selling out to English Canada, calling him Quebec’s “Uncle Tom.”

But Chrétien’s critics have it wrong. A review of what he accomplished and the festering national problems he addressed puts him in the category of one of our great prime ministers.

Chrétien’s brand of populism was not simplistic and was never destructive. He did not appeal to people’s fears or prejudices. His populism was not burrowed in the fringes but was grounded in the judgment of the widest possible swath of Canadians from all parts of the country. This approach freed him from ideology, dogma and even intellectual groupthink.

What Canadians saw in Jean Chrétien was an inherently optimistic prime minister. If people are worried or depressed, Chrétien argued, they won’t build for the future. But his approach was not to persuade Canadians with intellectual arguments or economic theories. His view was that the public was moved more by mood than by logic, more by instinct than by reason, more by results than by boastfulness. It was the personal qualities that Chrétien possessed that made him popular.

And few things made him more popular with the average Canadian than the Shawinigan handshake in 1996. That was when he grabbed a belligerent protester by the throat and threw him to the ground. Chrétien took lambasting on the editorial pages, and Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin told Chrétien the incident would not go over well in his province, but for a different reason. Tobin said in an interview with me that he informed the Prime Minister most Newfoundlanders thought he should have “kicked the protester in the balls rather than grabbing him by the throat.” There was an authenticity about Chrétien that was impossible to deny and hard to dislike.

My dad broke Chretien's leg on the boards in a hockey game.

In

MM-eh -

My dad broke Chretien's leg on the boards in a hockey game.

Canadians know to the world as super pollute but violent as fuck to each other in sport haha. 

Elhoffo -
MM-eh -

My dad broke Chretien's leg on the boards in a hockey game.

Canadians know to the world as super pollute but violent as fuck to each other in sport haha. 

Know *

Just another super corrupt liberal. Nothing to see here.

Didn’t he twist some guys neck?

Wanderpage - Just another super corrupt liberal. Nothing to see here.

Yeah but he's a grown ass man with balls unlike Trudeau Jr.

Chretien should have been arrested and put in prison.

Dead President - 

Didn’t he twist some guys neck?


Shawinigan Handshake.