Brian Who? I raise this question because anyone under 30 will have a hard time, at best, recalling his days in power. So here’s a mini-primer.
Visceral politics: What must surprise the young most is the deep ongoing animosity toward BM. You could call it hostility. No other leader has come close. In 1990, after the failure of a national trauma hilariously called the Meech Lake accord, BM appointed a commission to lance the boil of accumulated national rage. They found, “There is fury in the land against the prime minister.” Even that, its chair said, “understates the discontent.” Three years later, after BM resigned, the party he had led — the one that created Canada — won two seats out of 295. He aggravates us still.
None of this was due to media hostility, although BM has never ceased whining about it. I invite you to make your own analysis, based on any day’s news. The reporting may be unflattering, but the tone of commentary is almost always positive, neutral or intimidated. (He is a big suer.) The rage came straight from the people, despite their betters.
Take a this-week example: his speech in Toronto, after an inquiry was announced into the $300,000 in cash he took from fixer Karlheinz Schreiber that he had not mentioned when he testified under oath during a suit that led to a $2.1-million government payout to him. On Tuesday, he stood before a flush crowd and intoned, “I want to tell you tonight that I, Martin Brian Mulroney, 18th prime minister of Canada, will be there before the inquiry with bells on because I’ve done nothing wrong and I’ve got absolutely nothing to hide.” He got a standing O. The media called it “vintage Mulroney” (CTV); “he came out swinging” (CBC). Not: He came out blustering, or obfuscating.
That’s what always drove people nuts: He pontificates and “they” nod, reinforcing the vacuum. He could have put his bells on right there, and explained what the cash was for. An audience of normal humans would have yelled, Explain! Explain! till he did. The rage isn’t just at him, it’s at those who meekly let him do it.
Above all, it was that voice. I’d call it the voice the bosses use among themselves: unctuous, self-congratulatory and superficial. It reveals nothing because the privileges have already been shared out and no one intends to challenge the division of spoils. Some bosses know enough not to use it among the plebs. BM never learned. It drove people nuts. It crazes us still. Compare, say, the voice of Karlheinz Schreiber: wheedling, calculating, but not vain or contemptuous. For companionability, even credibility, I’d bet most people would prefer it beside them on a long flight. Feel free to disagree.
A note on ancient history: Don’t knock it. BM asked for an inquiry into the Schreiber imbroglio that would cover “the period from 1988 to today.” Makes you wonder what may have happened before that. Well, in 1983, Brian Mulroney forced the unhated Joe Clark to step down as Tory leader at a convention, then replaced him. On live TV, Tory sage Dalton Camp said “these people,” meaning the Mulroneyites, were backed by “offshore money.” It was hard not to think Arab petrodollars, but it turned out to be Karlheinz Schreiber and another bagman, who paid for planes from Quebec carrying Mulroney delegates to the convention. They may have been the margin that forced out Joe Clark. The question is, what did they expect in return? Five years later, in 1988, the Airbus deals were done under the Mulroney government; Karlheinz Schreiber was involved. Five years later, in 1993, his cash payments to Brian Mulroney began.
Can you imagine telling this story from the middle on? It would be like reading a thriller without the first 150 pages. None of it would make sense. It would be boring and pointless. Ancient history is often the key to making life — yours, mine, our nation’s, the species — interesting rather than opaque.