Everything has changed for Canada and the world...

 “Zelinskyy is a dictator without elections and Ukraine started the war,” words uttered both in writing and orally by the occupant of the Oval Office yesterday.

All the multiple threats of tariffs, trade war, take-overs in Greenland, Gaza and Panama, withdrawal from the Paris Environmental Accord and the WHO, the demolition of USAID, plus the evisceration of the federal government under the ruse of ‘eliminating waste, fraud and abuse,’ pale to the obvious obsequious pandering to Putin by the orange dictator of America.

For Canada, this marks a significant shift in focus from the need to address primarily, or exclusively economic and fiscal and trade issues, to a focus on geopolitics and this shift needs to be made urgently. No longer are the protocols, the language, the subtlety and the patience that characterize diplo-speak-and-act, adequate to meet the situation. World leaders are stunned and gob-smacked, off balance and nervous and they would be sleeping under a rock if they were not. Can the EU coalesce around the need to provide security troops in Ukraine, should a peace be arranged? Can the EU and Canada scramble fast enough to ramp up both security and trade agreements and deals that might give NATO some ‘oxygen’ as it gasps in the Emergency Room of geopolitics for its very existence? Can world leaders align with conviction and muscle and commitment, those who espouse, believe in and embody the basic tenets of democracy, including the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to personal security from a malignant government/state, and resistance to the oligarchical, right-wing, white supremacist and nationalist winds that are sweeping across much of the globe?

We in Canada are in the midst of two elections, the first for the provincial government of Ontario, the nation’s most populous province, the second for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and Prime Minister. It is the national debate and discussion that seems most relevant and cogent here and now.

Two candidates, Marc Carney and Chrystia Freeland currently, according to polls and Elections Canada fundraising data, lead a pack of some 5 candidates. And both the prevailing theory, and public opinion hold that Mr. Carney, the former Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, holds a significant lead over Ms Freeland. It is his ‘resume’ that has galvanized many members of the Liberal Party, those who will cast a vote for leader. Balancing the books, splitting the operating and the capital budget, in order to achieve ‘balance’ at least in one area, is an idea at the top of the Carney list of proposals. His primary focus, and expertise, it must be acknowledged, is economics, fiscal and monetary policy. And at a time when the cost of living is paramount in the minds and pocket-books of Canadians, the perception of any likelihood of a Liberal victory in the upcoming election seems to ride on the wave of both how to “deal” with the Trump threats against trade and Canadian sovereignty (he wants our natural resources, especially water and minerals and energy), and how to fix the Canadian economy. Canadians, too, especially Liberals, it must be acknowledged, really gravitate to a ‘winner’ a kind of projection of a leader to whom we can look up and admire, as if such a personage, whether the most appropriate or not, is our choice. And rising levels of anxiety foretell a return to ‘previous, reliable and dependable’ modes of both thought and behaviour. As pollster Nik Nanos puts it, “The race is Carney’s to lose!”

In this space, contrarian views seek revisiting, reflection, and uploading. And, based on the convergence of all the ‘dots’ on the radar screen of this scribe, especially given the global rise of a less than 1% of super-rich wannabe oligarchs, and the umbilical cord to power that leaders like Putin and Trump offer, their hooks are likely to remain firmly embedded in power for some time to come. And the relation between dictators and sycophants is based on more than money; those who write cheques are symbiotically enmeshed to their tyrants in and through their acts of adoring and adulating and flattering those tyrants. Who needs whom more is a question begging both untangling and doctoral research projects.

From the perspective of a low-middle-class octogenarian, this Canadian sees Mr. Carney, with respect, as a fitting image, if not actual mirror, of the elite mentality, ideation and imagination of the elites with whom he has worked his whole life. Some might call this reverse snobbery, the lower class being resentful of the upper class. I reject this judgement in this case simply because the future of Canada in a boiling global cauldron eclipses any notions of personal animus or prejudice based on this scribes resentment of the upper class.

What Canada needs is a Liberal leader and Prime Minister who has lived in  refugee camps and has lived with complex struggle from the beginning, as well as through the halls and libraries of various universities, and in the news rooms of multiple major news organizations. The perspective attitudes, imagination and resourcefulness that can really only come from such a broad, varied and challenging life story differ significantly from those bred in the board-rooms of national banks. It is not that those who have worked in national banks are less than, from the perspective of human dignity, personal worthiness or ethics. It is more that, in this case, the sensibilities of the board-room are not congruent with the nature of the exigencies that Canada and the world face. I know, personally, neither Mr. Carney nor Ms Freeland and I have no personal need to lean to one or the other.

It is simply and exclusively a deep-seated perception and attitude that keeps repeating the notion that a popular banker, although favoured by a majority of Cabinet and members of Parliament, and certainly in possession of vastly larger contributions from a considerably larger cadre of donors, is less fitted, and paradoxically less ‘complex’ and ‘subtle’ in imagination, in sensibility and in both compassion and empathy, a discernment that unsuccessfully begs empirical proof. Intuition is guiding and directing these keys, on this very cold February morning, only a couple of weeks prior to the March 9^th voting day for Liberal Party leader.

Amid all of the roiling geopolitical currents, at root, I want a government that puts the plight of the least among us (in our neighbourhood, province, nation and globe and that includes Ukraine and Palestine!) at the top of the decision-making totem of options…and keeps its eye on the victim. While the world is trumpeting extreme macho, alpha-male sexism, ageism, racism, and exclusion, I defer to a leader whose depth of experience and perception and attitudes slightly overshadows (perhaps by 51-49) those of the leading candidate. And Ms Freeland remains my choice as my reasons continue to become more clear.

Why I am even more enthusiastic in support of Chrystia Freeland on February 16, with a vote on March 9.

“The liberal leadership race is over-- Mr. Carney has it-- and no one is talking about either Chrystia Freeland or Karina Gould,” declares Bob Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief for the Globe and Mail,  on CTV’s Question Period.

“The liberal leadership race is Mr. Carney’s to lose,” intones pollster Nik Nanos on the same program.

Rob Benzie, Queen’s Park Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star, reminds us that the Liberals are known for their preference for a 'winner'…. “and yet no one is talking these days about Michael Ignatieff nor Stephane Dion” both of whom were supposed to be saviours of the Liberal Party.

While Ms Gould repeatedly reminds Liberals ‘we do not want a coronation!’ the prospect of a coronation of a ‘governor’ of two central banks, in Canada and in Great Britain has taken much of the party by storm. As one male voter puts it, ‘I am voting on his resume as the best chance to win the next election.’ A female voter puts it this way, “I really want to vote for Chrystia Freeland, but I am afraid that the Liberals might not win the election, as compared with the chances offered by Mr. Carncy.”

Electoral victory, in the national election expected shortly after the leadership vote, seems very important to many, and a highly qualified male candidate seems to have garnered MP support, Cabinet support and many new memberships in the party…all of this highly commendable.

Canadian novelist and social critic, Margaret Atwood, reminds us in her pithy insight:

“We still think of a powerful man as a born leader and a powerful woman as an anomaly.”

Chrystia Freeland is, we can all agree, a powerful woman. She has served as Deputy-Prime Minister in the Liberal government, served as international journalist and written a provocative work entitled, Plutocrats, the Rise of the New Global super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, is fluent in five languages, and brings her early childhood life on the prairies, parented by two lawyer parents who separated when she was nine. A graduate of more than a few colleges and universities, Ms Freeland brings a global perspective and experience, as well as a deeply intimate consciousness of the plight of the voiceless and the powerless. Her maternal grandparents fled Ukraine in 1939; her mother was born in an American Army-run refugee camp in Germany. Ms Freeland speaks fluent Ukrainian in addition to English, French, Russian and Italian. She and her family, parents and three sisters found refuge in Canada, like many other Ukrainians.

As a journalist, she worked for the Financial Times, the Economist, and the Washington Post, eventually heading the FT Moscow bureau. She was deputy editor of the Globe and Mail, and the Financial Times, and then managing editor of the Financial Times in 2010, when she returned to Thomson Reuters as managing editor and editor of consumer news. In 2013, Ms Freeland gave a Ted Talk on global income inequality.

She is definitely not an anomaly! And it is this stereotype, at least in part, that might be part of the cultural context of the public ‘adulation’ of the honourable and highly qualified Mr. Carney. However, it was former President Barack Obama who, in a conference in Singapore in 2019, made these comments:

“If women were put in charge of every country…there would be far less war, kids would be better taken care of and there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes.”

He continued, at the same conference; “If you look at the world and look at the problems, it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way. They cling to power, they are insecure, they have outdated ideas and the energy and fresh vision and new approaches are squashed. Now women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than us men…What we need, in terms of global leadership, is people who are comfortable with and understand complexities…but that, of course,, requires citizens to be comfortable with complexity. Part of the challenge we have as humans is that when things get complicated and confusing we tend to want to block it out and look for simply answers, so we are oftentimes, getting the leadership reflects our own insecurities and problems.

No one can argue that things are not complicated, confusing and that we default to simply answers…..and compound the complexities and the confusion.

Canada, like much of the world, faces serious crises, of economic, geopolitical, military, environmental, jurisdictional, legal and democratic natures…not only separately but in a convergence that is new to all of us. It is the mind, courage, heart and discipline of a woman, in this case, Chrystia Freeland, who, in a straight-forward truth-telling, public speaking style, careful and sensitive to the much more than literal implications of her words, offers Canada a new vision, not only through her specific and detailed policies, but more importantly, in and through her very person, a formidable woman, a model for every young woman and girl in the world to emulate.

Sometimes leaders have to say things that people do not want to hear…and sometimes the politically correct constraints make such tellings less than sexy and palatable….and yet, they need to be said. With the cross-winds of tensions about the future of Ukraine, and thus the future of European security, the future of NATO, the WHO, the global environment, the rise of oligarchies of white nationalist supremacists, the ugliness of Israeli-Palestinian hatred and distrust, the proliferation of lies and disinformation and the need to reinforce international institutions….Canada’s future includes her vigorous, creative, courageous and principled participation on the world stage, while we also take care of business at home.

Chrystia Freeland is the candidate who offers the most comprehensive resume, the most varied experience and the demonstrated proof of her time in the trenches of politics as my choice for leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister. We need not only to be grateful for her contributions already delivered; we need to envision her voice, face, insightful mind and profound courage as our representative on a world stage that is fraught with complexities and confusion. She is the candidate who is most comfortable with and who understands complexities….and we need her now!

Why I am voting for Chrystia Freeland for Liberal Party Leader and Prime Minister

As an accomplished scholar, journalist, politician and social justice fighter, Ms Freeland offers the most profound and complete resume of the candidates in the field. A master of 5 languages, the daughter of a prairie family Ms Freeland, the author of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, Ms Freeland is neither a rookie to government nor a new-comer to the issue of the divide between the have's and the have-not's. 

Her mind-set is not restricted to a specific academic discipline, nor a specific file; her focus encompases the panorama of issues, and gets to the core of each issue. She is the only candidate who, thus far, has asked the "less than 1% if they really want to live in a land where a young woman seeks an abortion because she does not have adequate funds for contraception'....She is also the only candidate so far who has dubbed the current crisis with the United States as an existential crisis, and has underscored the threat to the sovereignty of Canada as the core issue. She is also the only candidate so far who has publicly (on MSNBC) told the Americans Canada wants the Americans to attend to the flagrant issue of smuggled guns that are killing Canadians at an unacceptable rate.

No a 'johnny-come lately, ' Ms Freeland entered politics when the Liberal Party was on life-support, and served nearly a decade as minister responsible for several portfolios, including the NAFTA CAMUS (Nafta .2), as well as Finance and Deputy Prime Minister. Ms Freeland claims to be running as the ant-establishment candidate, referencing, we can infer, her split with the Prime Minister, and her further inference that the PMO prefers the candidacy of the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. 

Determined to broaden the influence of both parliamentarians and members of the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as to subject the future leader to regular party evalutaions and votes of confidence from the caucus, Ms Freeland advocates for accountability, transparency and a PMO that listens to both the Cabinet, the Caucus and the citizens. Trying to get a message to the Liberal PArty for the last several years, through the party website has been a nightmare for those of us who have tried.

Another honourable candidate, Ms Gould continues to remind party members that 'we do not need a coronation' as has been the preferred 'choice' and method of 'appointing' a new leader for too long. Ms Gould is right that a coronation is neither appropriate for the party nor for the country. And given that the first ballot is a preferential ballot, Ms Gould will be my second choice for leader. It is the question of depth and range of experience that qualifies Ms Freeland, over Ms Gould. My perception of the also honourable third candidate is that, coming from the theatre of central banks, both in Canada and in England, his perspective has been shaped and formed in the board rooms of both insitutions and, while it might bring the business community (and the largest number of cabinet ministers into his fold), I suspect the glow of another shiny object, another 'heroic' masculine alpha leader at a time when the feminine is so clearly needed here in Canada adn around the world. And this need is no better exemplified than in and through the current occupants of the Oval Office where the absolute worst features of toxic masculinity abound, and threaten the stability andf security of not only the United States by the global community.

States-man-ship, even the word demonstrates the implicit bias of the vernacular....Diplomacy, serious thought and analysis, a commoner's perspective, a biography that exudes both confidence and competence, and even a needed note of 'defiance' when necessary,  are just some of the exemplary traits Ms Freeland brings to the table. The inside popularity of the former Bank Governor, paradoxically, eschews the depth of unpopularity of the party over the last several months and a potential desperation to seek a hero or another messiah that can rescue both the party and the government.

There is no heroic messiah either inside Ms Freeland nor projected by her onto the Canadian landscape. She may not be the hail-farewell old-boy who covorts on John Stewart's television show; nor is she the push-over that secured the renewed trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico the last time around. She has demonstrated effective adn responsive relationships with the premiers of the provinces, as has neither of the other two primary candidates.

When I wrote to a friend to ask him to support Ms Freeland, he replied that, while he had listened and watched her interview with Fareed Zakaria on GPS on CNN, he thought she was 'wishy-washy'....that was his word...so he is voting for the former Bank Governor. My response to his 'critique' runs this way:

As a communicator, Ms Freeland has a very unique speaking pace, timbre and pacing. She speaks slowly, thoughfully, reservedly, and extremely precisely. I cannot recall her being caught out on an 'off-the-cuff' comment that seems to be a frequent faux pas of politicians. Her public presentations may, to some, seem somewhat pedantic, and perhaps even a little patronizing, as if she were carefully explaining a complex issue to a person or audience who might be unfamiliar with the nuances and the subtleties of the whole picture. Indeed, I think we can all agree that most of us fall into the category of being far less informed, familiar and steeped in the subtleties and complexes of almost all issues than she is, particularly on those issues on which she speaks publicly.

Care, not only in the details of policy, or the re-discovery and deployment of the party membership, including caucus and cabinet, extends for Ms Freeland to her very manner of delivering whatever it is that needs to be conveyed. This, rather than demonstrating a wishy-washy demeanour, demonstrates a sensitivity, an empathy and a degree of patience with both the subject and the listener that is so clearly missing from most person-to-person and politician-to-public comunications. Carefulness, attention to detail, and mastering of the various files that land on the desk of all chief executives....these are all part of the package that Ms Freeland brings to her candidacy and to the party and nation for their serious consideration.

(This is a wholly independent, unpaid, unsolicited, and private opinion of an absolute outsider.)