In their new book, The Big Shift , pollster Darrell Bricker and journalist John Ibbitson argue that Stephen Harper’s 2011 majority was no accident but the natural by-product of a joining of forces between Western Canada and suburban Ontario, particularly its immigrant middle class. This conservative coalition formed around the likes of low taxes, criminal vigilance, pride in military and suppression of environmentalists and other anti-growth activists. It has, they contend, changed the face of Canadian politics irrevocably.

They pronounce the old belief system, one they refer to as the Laurentian consensus, dead and buried . Their Laurentian elite lived for the Quebec-Canada fissure and, on slower days, regional transfers, support programs, rights regimens, public broadcasting and all that jazz. Their eclipse is best captured by the decline of the Liberal Party of Canada, which ruled for a formidable 69 years in the 20th century.

“We believe the Conservative party will be to the 21st century what the Liberal party was to the 20th: the perpetually dominant party, the naturally governing party.”

The authors are friends of mine. But I’m sure they won’t object if I intrude into their thesis.

There is much to debate about whether Canadian values have shifted meaningfully or whether Conservative success is more exogenous — the product of the sponsorship scandal, successive Liberal leaders with serious political deficits, Jack Layton’s 2011 campaign surge and the last-minute stampede of blue Liberals to the right. It is hard to imagine the prime minister really thought he had a majority in him a week before election day.

But what makes The Big Shift intriguing is the likelihood that its thesis will be tested sooner rather than later. Setting aside Thomas Mulcair for a moment, the next election almost certainly will pit Stephen Harper against Justin Trudeau, each an exemplar of the book’s rising and falling coalitions. If Trudeau isn’t a prototypical member of the Laurentian elite, who is?

Well, in my view, not this Trudeau. He’s too young to adhere to the old consensus; it would hardly compute for him. And he’s more royalty than elite.

In contrast to Harper, Trudeau is the child of a post-ideological age — pragmatic and idealistic both; green and growth-oriented; global, digital and socially connected and situational to the nth degree. His cohort bristles at state interventions in their private lives and are perfectly at ease with a mélange of identities in a single saucepan.

As widely noted, Trudeau is no policy heavyweight. So far, he has managed to float like a butterfly above the fray — much to the dismay of, well, the Laurentian elites. Rather than succumb to policy demands framed for the convenience of others, he will need to concentrate on his party’s essential narrative, which has gone missing in recent years. What makes the Liberals different and relevant? He’s already laid down a few markers: opposed to the Gateway pipeline route to the West Coast but not opposed in theory to shipping oilsands product; supportive of Chinese investment in Nexen; attentive to middle-class angst; in favour of decriminalizing marijuana; against reopening the Constitution — each a brick in a storyline under construction.

Trudeau is sensitive to the power shifts Bricker and Ibbitson portray. That his first campaign foray skipped over the Gatineaus and Outremonts, classic Laurentian elite stops, for Calgary, Richmond and Mississauga demonstrates an appreciation for the emerging Pacific century and the defining struggle for the hearts and minds of the aspirational immigrant classes. The Conservatives have done extraordinary spade work in these communities, but the Trudeau brand also resonates with New Canadians. This is a battle he cannot afford to lose.

We live in an age of low party loyalty and minimal public engagement. In a campaign, a potentially decisive pool of voters can move suddenly on superficial input. Blink — you’re elected! Trudeau’s weapons of choice are style and personality. There’s no shame in this: more voters are swayed by sentiment than analysis. Coolness and authenticity, if they stand up to public scrutiny, are not bad positioning.

Nothing is preordained in politics. As royalty, Justin Trudeau gets a break, not a free pass. Assuming he can displace Mulcair as the alternative, Harper will severely test whether our occasional pugilist can really take a punch. In the end, Trudeau will have to neutralize policy as the dependent variable (he’s not his father) and ride the sunny ways (again, not his father) that served Liberal leaders like Laurier and Chrétien so well. The happy warrior against a preternaturally sullen opponent is the matchup he requires.

Edward Greenspon is Vice-President, Strategic Investments, at the Star. He is a former newspaper editor and Ottawa bureau chief. His column appears monthly. egreenspon@thestar.ca

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: