Who Should Be Prime Minister?

The options for Prime Minister of Canada from March 9th to, well, at least March 24th are limited, and there are only two contenders that really matter in this race: Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney.

To people already prone to vote Liberal, perceived front-runner Mark Carney appears to be the best option. He knows his files, has economic credentials like no other in a time of economic turmoil, has a subtle but powerful wit, and he has the support of a clear majority of a caucus who have worked with most of the other candidates.

Leadership by Caucus

His biggest liability is also his biggest asset — he does not have a seat in the House, but nor does he have the baggage of having been part of the Trudeau government that would have come with having a seat. If he wins, he would be the first Prime Minister in Canadian history never to have held elected office. His coyness in whether or not to accept the Finance portfolio makes vastly more sense in retrospect as he weighed the relative value of being in Trudeau’s cabinet versus coming in as a nominally complete outsider.

For those who do not already know him, his interview last week on the Daily Show was a great introduction. It was as friendly an interview as one can ever hope for, but set him into a relaxed atmosphere where he could show Canadians — and Americans — who he truly is.

It is in sharp contrast to Pierre Poilievre’s recent rambling two-hour interview with right wingnut Jordan Peterson; the thumbnails alone, juxtaposed, speak volumes:

Chyrstia Freeland, whose straw broke the camel of Trudeau’s leadership, is the other major contender. Whip smart and in Parliament since winning a by-election in the fall of 2013, in cabinet since 2015, she has both considerable political experience and all the baggage that comes with having been an integral part of the Trudeau government. She was key to our strategy in dealing with Trump the first time around, and will be needed to do it again with this far more dangerous second act.

Prior to politics, she was a widely respected journalist. She wrote the prize-winning book “Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else” the year before she was elected, thoroughly establishing the progressive credentials those close to her already knew she had, and showing on a profound level that she knows what we are up against in dealing with an American oligarchy that no longer even pretends to be anything else, and has its eyes on our own country.

Between Freeland and Carney, there isn’t a bad option for Canada. Two of the most qualified people ever to offer themselves into the public service of the country are vying for the leadership of the Liberal Party and for Prime Minister. Notably, both grew up in Alberta.

For stalwart party members, choosing between them is almost unfair. Which exceptional candidate do you wish to offend by not selecting them? How do you keep both engaged following the race, to have them work together as a team? Freeland has been playing second fiddle to the current Prime Minister for a decade and it’s doubtful she’ll be eager to reprise that role. Carney doesn’t have a seat and won’t before the leadership is decided. Were he to lose this race, there wouldn’t be much incentive for him to stick around.

For those who’ve been there, it’s quite relatable. When I lost my bid for re-election in 2019, a local radio station asked if I would run again. I answered that I had no intention of being the jilted ex hanging around hoping to be taken back some day.

There are, to be sure, at least five other candidates who have declared their intent to run, provided they can raise the $350,000 entry fee in the few short weeks available. In assessing them at this crucial juncture, the standard is simple: would their absence have been noted, as it has been for several decent candidates who have bowed out? In different circumstances, there may have been credible options from among them; a subject for another day.

For now, the party needs someone with an established reputation who is squeaky clean who can hit the ground running and destabilise the well-funded Conservative misinformation machine.

Mark Carney is the only of the leadership candidates I have not met. I have long been worried that he will suffer some of the same challenges as Michael Ignatieff half a generation before him, that he is an outsider brought in by a detached elite on false promises and premises, and that his background in the national banks will alienate him from a voting population suffering from interest and inflation trauma.

When Liberals Lose Montreal

My perspective is, however, evolving, in large part thanks to that bias-breaking Daily Show interview showing a vastly different personality from that previous leader. Unlike Ignatieff, he has no illusions about what he is getting himself into.

He may be an outsider from the current government, but it was on Stephen Harper’s watch that he took the helm of the Bank of Canada, where he was during the 2008 crash. It was on the watch of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron that he took over the Bank of England, where he remained through the Brexit crisis. He may not have held elected office, but he is no stranger to difficult politics — and it has consistently been Conservatives that have turned to him for help when they got themselves in trouble.

Canadians have been saying for some time that Justin Trudeau has to go, and as someone put it to me recently, “it’s unfortunate that Pierre has to be the one to replace him.” Carney offers an alternative in that narrative that most of the other candidates will be far more challenged to sell.

If you want your say in this leadership race, you have until the end of business tomorrow to register to vote.