Yet despite their differences, both men have been caught equally flat-footed by the coronavirus. In recent weeks, the American and Canadian media have described similarly grim retrospectives of administrations too eager to play down the seriousness of covid-19 in the early days, and too dismissive of "knee-jerk reactions” (in Trudeau’s words), when they would have made the most difference. “From apathy to panic,” as the Edmonton Journal wrote of Canada’s response to the pandemic.

AD

AD

While both men have enjoyed some degree of a rally-around-the-leader bounce in the polls, the halting, piecemeal nature of both governments’ responses has also undoubtedly helped contribute to the atmosphere of uncertainty and malaise that now defines North American life. Persistently unanswered questions provoke identical anxieties on both sides of the border. Are we doing enough to protect ourselves? How worried should we be about each day’s fresh deluge of statistics? And most importantly: When is it all going to end?

At least part of the problem, it seems, is that covid-19 was an issue that couldn’t easily be processed within either leader’s limited partisan frame for understanding the purpose of politics.

It’s common to hear complaints that our standard “left-right” political axis is outdated — usually by voters desiring politicians with a more eclectic mix of ideas. Yet the current crisis suggests our preoccupation with the rigid politics of left and right might also exist in reverse proportion to competent leadership more broadly.

AD

AD

Trump and Trudeau both required a relatively cynical political culture to get where they are. To overcome concerns about their inexperience, temperament and even intelligence, both relied on a narrowly transactional pitch to their parties’ ideological coalitions.

Trudeau was naive, the pitch went, but his famous name and charms made him electable, and he could be trusted to legalize marijuana and impose a price on carbon. Trump was ignorant, but he had a strong sway over certain strategically important voters and would reliably cut taxes and appoint antiabortion judges. Such framing posits heads of government as people who are primarily useful for their ability to tick boxes on a partisan wish list.

Containing a pandemic of a deadly respiratory illness spawned by a highly contagious virus spread through human contact, however, is not the kind of crisis either side of our political divide bothers to groom its leaders for. Dealing with covid-19 does not involve appeasing an ideological base, after all, but rather employing impartial judgment to manage unprecedented threats to human life and civilization.

AD

AD

When faced with nonideological problems of this sort, our limited partisan imaginations often conclude that responsibility should simply be shoved off to nonpartisan technocrats — the Anthony Faucis and Theresa Tams of the world. Both Trump and Trudeau have cited this premise as justification for their slow coronavirus responses. We’ve got “the greatest experts in the world” on it, as Trump once quipped.

Yet expert opinion is rarely static. The past few weeks alone have seen dramatic shifts on matters ranging from the desirability of travel bans and face masks to the number of people that constitutes a dangerous “public gathering.” The fast-declining reputation of the World Health Organization, meanwhile, is a reminder that expertise is not immune to taints of bias.

More importantly, a narrow, technical expert is neither qualified nor required to make the subjective assessments that are ultimately needed to transition a government from crisis management to crisis resolution. Finding the appropriate balance between lives and livelihoods is the sort of dilemma that can only be resolved by an elected leader prepared to make a decisive moral ruling. Blindly agreeing to “flatten the curve” is one thing. Deciding when it’s flat enough is another.

AD

AD

The political culture that elevated Trump and Trudeau is not without merit. The suite of issues their conventional coalitions of right and left arose to address remain relevant. But assessments of leadership — that old-fashioned skill of being able to make difficult, pragmatic decisions in moments of crisis and strife — deserve to play a more central role in our elections than what we’ve allowed.

Whatever legacy this crisis leaves on North America, let’s hope this is part of it.