|
Monday May
25,
2009 BACK NEXT
Richard
Nixon popped into my mind many times last week during Brian
Mulroney’s
testimony at the Oliphant Inquiry. Of course, the legal situations
of the two politicians is very different. In fact, former prime
minister Mulroney said many times during his testimony that he never
did anything illegal and, until proven otherwise, we must believe
him. But
it’s
interesting to look at the politics of the
two. Mulroney,
like Nixon, had all the elements to be a great politician and, like
Nixon, they both did great things when in
office. It
was Nixon who ended the Vietnam War and contributed greatly to world
peace by opening up to the Soviets and Chinese in the middle of a
nasty Cold War. And
then Watergate happened. In
Canada, Mulroney did great things as prime minister. He brought in
the GST, which coupled with the signing of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, brought fortune to the future Liberal governments.
Mulroney is also recognized as the best prime minister on
environmental issues. He and his government also actively opposed
the apartheid regime in South Africa, earning him international
respect. And
then Karlheinz Schreiber happened. John
F. Kennedy, on the other hand, was the one who started the war in
Vietnam, brought the superpowers close to a nuclear war, and tried
to invade Cuba with the help of the Mafia. Yet, he’s
remembered as a hero, and Nixon’s
remembered as a villain. Here
in Canada, before Mulroney, there was Pierre Trudeau, the Liberal
prime minister who, aside from bringing in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, failed in everything else. Quebec still hasn’t
signed the constitutional agreement and he left the economy in
shambles, and the West wanted out. Still,
like Kennedy in the U.S., he is considered a hero by most
Canadians. Why?
It was because Kennedy and Trudeau were trusted, Nixon and Mulroney
are not. Kennedy
and Trudeau inspired their citizens to do great things, gave
confidence and stimulated people’s
aspirations. It
has been reported that Nixon, looking at Kennedy’s
portrait in the White House once said: “When
they [Americans] look at you, they see what they want to be. When
they look at me, they see what they are.”
Mulroney, like Nixon, did not inspire people, and both men had an
almost morbid desire to be loved and admired. They were also both
obsessed by their predecessors’
charisma and public appeal. Getting
back to Mulroney’s
testimony last week, it was a masterpiece from a legal perspective
when answering questions from commission lawyer Richard Wolson at
the Oliphant Inquiry. It
was Mulroney at his best, but not as a politician, as a lawyer. He
offered lots of details when they were good for his client
(himself), and he was looking for the “context”
when details were embarrassing. He never gave a significant yes or
no answer unless it was a question about his name or his
residence. However
you slice it, it is unacceptable, for a former prime minister to
take cash, stuff it in a safe and pay five years later half of the
taxes. If he was doing it in good faith we have to wonder about his
intelligence. If
he wants people to believe that he is stupid, he makes all of us
wonder about his real judgment about being prime minister. If,
instead, he is not stupid, and he is not, then all of us have the
right to fill in the blanks. Yes,
he did nothing illegal and I agree with him that we are now talking
about the issue only because Schreiber is using him to avoid
extradition to Germany where the businessman is accused of
corruption and fraud. But
this is exactly the point: Schreiber also tried to use Prime
Minister Stephen Harper to avoid extradition, but he failed because
Harper did not put himself in a position to be
used. I
also understand the people around Harper are trying to put hundreds
of miles between him and the Schreiber case. Unfortunately
for them, in order to do so, they have to put distance between
Harper and Mulroney because the former prime minister is the only
possible link. And this decision can be considered wise, especially
after Mulroney’s
testimony last week. Mulroney dealt with the legal implications, not
the political. I
hope I will never need a lawyer, but if I do and I have the money to
afford one, I would like to have a lawyer like Mulroney on my side.
However, I don’t
believe I would like to have him as a prime minister again or as my
political
mentor. |