This is the tale of two prime ministers. Both are Albertans. One came to Ottawa as a member of Parliament for Calgary. He dislikes Ottawa. The other came to Ottawa as a member of Parliament (mostly) for Yellowhead and Calgary. He likes Ottawa.
Both are conservatives. One was once a Reformer. Now he is a Conservative. The other was once a Progressive Conservative. Now he sounds like a Liberal. One was leader of the Opposition for four years and has been prime minister for almost eight years. The other was leader of the Opposition for three years and prime minister for nine months.
Both learned French when they came to Ottawa, and both tried, unsuccessfully, to woo Quebec. Both married strong-willed women and had small families.
One studied economics, the other law. They share geography, some history and little philosophy.
You might think that they are allies. They are not. You might think, given their difference in age and experience, the younger might seek counsel from the elder.
You might think, however naive, that the current prime minister would want to use the talents of his predecessor. But this is Canada, where former and sitting prime ministers heartily dislike each other, even if they are from the same province and the same party. This statutory antagonism is as enduring as the Peace Tower and as unlikely to change as the Constitution.
And, as they say of Hockey Night in Canada, the tradition continues with Stephen Harper and Joe Clark.
Their mutual antipathy has smouldered for years. Then again, Harper is faithless and friendless in politics. Loyalty is meaningless to him. He resents and dislikes many people. Clark is just one.
A former general and a former officer of Parliament recall Harper鈥檚 inclination to become angry in private. In public, though, he is careful; he quaintly says 鈥渄arn鈥� instead of 鈥渄amn鈥� in Parliament.
By contrast, Clark is a gentleman. He is the epitome of decency, restraint and modesty. It wasn鈥檛 easy for him to pay tribute to Pierre Elliott Trudeau upon leaving Parliament in 1984; Trudeau had been hard on him. Clark was gracious and classy, as he has been on so many occasions in a public life that deserves our applause.
But there he is now, on television and in the newspapers, poking the prime minister with a stick. That Clark has a new edge suggests his frustration and disappointment.
Clark says the Conservatives arrived in 2006 without much 鈥渟chooling鈥� in the country or its institutions, and now holds them in contempt.
This made it easy to reject consensus. Their modus operandi became attack politics, which is why they framed the last two Liberal leaders with vicious advertising before the writ was dropped. They will try the same on Justin Trudeau.
Clark, who entered politics in 1972 and became prime minister in 1979, finds that disturbing. In government, he regrets, there is no longer a sense of ministerial responsibility.
While Michael Chong resigned as minister of intergovernmental affairs on a point of principle in 2006, ministers who have behaved badly, such as Peter MacKay, tough it out. That鈥檚 what the prime minister is doing now. He never apologizes.
鈥淗e must bring people into the facts,鈥� advises Clark. 鈥淗e needs to tell the story.鈥�
The reservations of the former prime minister, and those of his ilk who are unwelcome in the Conservative Party of Canada, should worry the sitting prime minister, who wants to be re-elected.
That鈥檚 because like other disaffected conservatives, Joe Clark will have to choose next time between a government he doesn鈥檛 recognize and the party most likely to defeat it. Perhaps he already has.
听
Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.
