Article content continued

His stand on the ISIS effort illustrates a pattern in Mr. Trudeau’s style. He is averse to declaring himself. He prefers to leave the blackboard murky on very many issues, except, and this is telling, on those causes officially sanctioned by the higher progressivism. On those he is certainty itself. Exiling the Liberal senators from caucus he is Sherman going into Atlanta. On abortion, and banning all right-to-life candidates, he is Patton. On ISIS and related matters, all resolution fades. There, he is Hamlet.

Mr. Trudeau, noting the direction of the wind, promises his support while simultaneously noting he has deep concerns about it

It’s much the same on the anti-terror legislation. Given Mr. Trudeau’s view of Stephen Harper, I don’t think there can be much doubt where he really stands on this. But, such is the mood of the times, a majority actually favours the bill. So Mr. Trudeau, noting the direction of the wind, promises his support while simultaneously noting he has deep concerns about it. And offers the rider that — should he win — he’ll fix it later.

It has been well said of fences, though they can be sat upon, they are not chairs.

These are the cracks in the smooth ice of the Liberal leadership, indications that below the gleaming surface things are not as secure as some might wish. He appears to want to give both a Yes and a No to many questions which, if you open one of those hatches, the other is necessarily denied. Does he not know his own mind on these matters? Or does he waver because he is not sure how public opinion has settled or will settle on them? Mr. Mulcair — who is his real rival in the upcoming election — is, by contrast, offering clarity and definition. On the terror legislation it is Mr. Mulcair who is pushing the debate, even in the teeth of the polls which show the legislation — for now — is popular.