The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Moore Butts #10 -- Is Division a Winner, Unity a Loser?

Episode Date: September 11, 2023

In the tenth instalment of what has become a very popular conversation, former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore and former principal secretary to prime minister Trudeau Gerald Butts focus on helping us understand political trends.  Today, again burying their partisan feelings, the two look at the issue of how to campaign in an era of polarization.  

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge, The Moor Butts Conversation Number 10. It's a good one, and it's coming right up. And here we go, kicking off a new week on the bridge. And what a way to kick it off. The latest episode of the Moor Butts Conversations. This is the 10th in a series that we started, well, a little more than a year ago. And it's been, well, it's been enjoyable to do, but I think it's been rewarding for listeners as well. And we've certainly heard that from many of you over this past year.

James Moore, the former Conservative cabinet minister in the Stephen Harper cabinets. He was, among other things, he was minister of industry at one point. Today, these days, living on the West Coast, he is the senior advisor to the global law firm of Denton's. He's also a policy advisor to Edelman's. And on the other side of the equation, Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau. Jerry is now the vice chair of the Eurasia Group and advising governments and businesses literally around the world

What these two have agreed to do in our conversations is to try and leave partisanship aside and sort of cut through to understand how things operate in the back rooms, if you will, but also the thinking that goes behind the politics of today. And that's in many ways what we're trying to get at in today's conversation, in a world of polarization. How do you kind of plan, how do you map out a strategy as a political party?

What to take advantage of, what to leave aside, what's responsible, what isn't responsible. So that's what we're going to try and get at today. Once again, James Moore, Gerald Butts. And I think we should just get right at it and see what they have to say. There's a little bit of explanation on the topic needed at first, and, well, let's give it. Here we go. More Butts Conversation, number 10. All right, gentlemen, I've got to lay the groundwork here a little bit

for this conversation. So I'm going to give you a quote from Reince Priebus. Now, you both may well know Reince Priebus. You may well have bumped into him in your various roles. But Reince Priebus was former chair of the Republican Party of the United States. And in the early days of the Trump administration, after his election victory in 2016, Priebus was the chief of staff. Well, he was on a television program a couple of weeks ago,

and I was watching it. They were discussing how a party would navigate the waters in an election these days given the polarization going on in the country. And he was asked what his theory would be about how to navigate. And his quote was this, division is profit, meaning basically division is a winner. Unity is a loser. Now, that's a quote that's related to U.S. politics,

but one can draw parallels to many democratic countries around the world, including Canada. What do you make of it? What does that tell us? Is that what we've come to, where division is profit and unity is a loser? James? It can be, but I don't think it's a universal truth ronald reagan i mean you

sting in the american context because that's where ryan's previous come from ronald reagan was a uniter right coming out of a disorganized and unpopular presidency of jimmy carter ronald reagan said we're going to lower taxes rebuild the military and take on the soviet union and win the cold war and it's morning in mourning in America again. And he was a uniter, which is why he won 49 out of 50 states. He ended up, by the end of his presidency, he was still popular, which is why George H.W. Bush won in 88 and so on. So I don't think that that principle is always true. Barack Obama was a unifying force in American politics in 2008, coming out of the divisions

of the Iraq War. You know, the surprise vice presidency of Sarah Palin helped, but that wasn't the reason why Barack Obama won. He had a message of remember what is not a red America or a blue America. There's a United States of America. That's a unifying message that was wildly successful, popular. By the end of his presidency, he was, you know, he was a divisive personality for a bunch of reasons, real and unreal, but it's what it is.

So I don't think it's true to say the division always works. If voter turnout is low and you're talking about mid midterm campaigns, then division can absolutely be where you squeeze out your marginal votes. And you you get somebody who's really angry to not only be angry and turn up and vote, but to commit their spouse to also be angry or at least share with me in my anger and show up when I go and vote too on Saturday. Would you come out with me and just show me that solidarity and support? Be angry with me, please. And so I don't think it's a universal truth. I think there's money to be made in his phrase in circumstances, but I don't think that that's always certainly what the public looks for a response to. You know, I don't think Brevis would disagree with anything you said there, James. I guess what I'm wondering is, is have things shifted to a degree where today, you know, division is profit and unity is a loser. Jerry, you weigh in on this now well maybe in this in the spirit of unity p i'll agree with

james i think that it depends on the times and it's a continuum that in if i ask you i'm going to give you two clear choices and it's up to you which one to make that sounds like a pretty good proposition if i say to, I'm going to divide you from your neighbor because you believe different things and therefore you shouldn't come together at a Saturday barbecue. That's a very different offer. Right. But I think in a, um, at their base, the same impulses behind them, the last conversation we had before the summer and happy September to everybody. It's good to be back on your program here, Peter. The last conversation we had,

we talked about how the new communications technology has weaponized the ability to micro target people according to the beliefs that they have and assemble them into groups that oppose one another. That I, is a genuinely new thing. And it's probably what Reince was alluding to, that there's more money to be made in creating tribal affiliation and having those separate groups of people attack and distrust one another than there is in trying to bring people together. It may be easier, but it's no way to build a country. It may be a good way to build a Facebook following.

It's true to say in American congressional politics, nomination primary politics, and also nomination and leadership politics in Canada, that that's true, that you divide. But one of the things that I think that is often missed in the discussion or the analysis of Canadian politics is there's a difference between good politics and good governing. They're not the same thing. And what gets you elected is not necessarily, well, it's often rarely the case that it's

the same strategy and tactics that sustains you in office and allows you to continue to govern. People lend you their support because they want to identify with a movement, a cause, a solution to a set of problems that have been identified and articulated. But you get sustained in government if those are seen to be winning remedies to contemporary problems and other people see them and you govern competently. So often I think about that with Prime Minister Trudeau. I think about that, frankly, with Pierre Poliev, when you see successful politics, successful leadership, successful convention, success growing, and the strategies and tactics that are built around that, some of them can lend themselves to being successful in government, but often it's not

the same. And if you make that transition, I think you're making a big mistake. Christy Clark, former Premier of BC, made the observation one time about a campaign manager for a liberal leader in the past who was a phenomenal campaign manager because this person knew the Liberal Party inside out and backwards and knew all the factions within the Liberal Party, but would be a horrible campaign manager for a general election because it's a completely different brain that has to click in in order to transition and be a campaign manager to appeal to the whole country as opposed to the small catacombs of the Liberals who show up for a leadership race. And it would be equally true

for that person to then transition and become a chief of staff to a prime minister. It's a different mindset. And if your mindset is division works, division gives us results. It is true in context in windows of time. But if that's the mindset that you're stuck on, then you're not going to succeed. You need to be, the analogy that somebody once said, to be successful in politics, you can't be a fixed artillery piece just firing with the same approach you have to be a swiss army knife that has some finesse and nuance in how you approach things and i think that's very very true weigh in on that jerry because you've had that kind of you've had both those roles you know right running a campaign and running an office uh of a leader um they're very different yeah Yeah. I think, I think they are very different skills and obviously I'm not

unbiased in this Peter, but I do think that the same person can do both roles. I think that you can be you can acquire habits doing one that are very, not just unuseful in the other, but counterproductive. Right. And James has sort of illustrated that, but, but I do think that there's, in both cases, you can run a divisive campaign and you can be successful or you can run a big broad unifying campaign and also be successful. But I do think, and I certainly agree with James here,

that the only durable way to be successful as a government is to bring as many people into your tent as possible. That, you know, it's very, very difficult, especially in a country like Canada, where we have so many natural differences, that if you don't have some kind of centrifugal force and centripetal force in the national government, then it's really dangerous for the country over the long term. And I know from my time in office, and people may not agree with this, but you know, it's a free country. People can disagree. We spent an extraordinary amount of time when I was in the prime minister's office on people who never voted for us. Right. And that was almost it was a conscious decision that we made because we felt that we had an obligation,

a moral obligation to represent as best as we could the people who didn't support us in an election. And I think that we depend in this country on the leadership of whatever party happens to be in power at the time to have that disposition. Right. And we're stronger when they do. And we're much weaker when they don't. I want to try to understand how difficult it is for the people in those roles because you see it comes up through every government, no matter the stripe the wrong people are in the prime minister's office or the wrong people are running the campaign how difficult is it to separate being one from being the other?

Because, I mean, clearly in a campaign, you're in an attack mode and a defend mode, where when you're in the governing role, you seem to be trying to put forward some form of comprehensive, unified approach to governing. So how difficult is it to be both? James? Some people can't. Some people don't make the transition. I remember there were a number of Reform Party members of Parliament who were elected to kick over tables and break things because they were angry. The West wants in and all that started in 88.

Nobody was elected. Deb Gray elected in 89. The breakthrough of 52 seats in 93. 60 seats in 97. These are people who were sent to Ottawa to shake things up, not to form government. And then when the Canadian Alliance came around, and then ultimately the Conservative Party came around under Stephen Harper's leadership, there were a lot of people in the Reform Party class of 93, 97 who didn't transition over. People like Monty Solberg and Chuck Strahl and others who became very successful and accomplished, you know, cabinet ministers with real contributions to the country. They did.

But there are others who kind of fell away and never really, you know, got their brains to sort of transition over to being in government, to wanting to own the problems and to being the person who says, you know, give me the ball. I'm going to run with it and see what I can do with it, because it's a lot easier to break things and to be angry than it is to be calm in a storm be substantive consult think about things measure twice cut once move forward um and some people just can't do that some people don't want to do that it's it's kind of you know fun to me i know in professional wrestling i've watched them randomly i watched the interview with hulk hogan on joe rogan came up and

came up in my feed and just kind of rolled over i was listening to this those are really interesting hulk hogan talking about the difference between being a good guy and a bad guy in wrestling. He said, it's a thousand times more fun to be the bad guy because you just get to, you know, care about the fans and you can show up late and you can just kind of, but it's fun in politics to just be the person who's just always angry. Who's just always making noise.

Who's just always selling t-shirts and selling books and, you know, pushing out anger and heat. It's a lot harder to build a building than it is to knock one down. And so some people just don't make that transition because they can't, and then they turn can't into a virtue, and the system is just never really ready for my

ideas. Is it easier to win when you're angry? Sometimes. I mean, it depends. You know, there was anger around Stephen Harper. I think it was probably easier then. There's a there was anger around stephen harper i think it was probably easier then there's a lot of anger around justin trudeau it'll be easier for a lot of conservatives i mean um joe biden you know his election in in 2020 i mean he basically you know shuffle up to the porch and say i'm not donald trump go back inside and do that for a couple months and he's become president. Jerry.

Yeah. I mean, I think it really depends. I I've, I've often thought that conservatives can, um, uh, and I don't mean this in a pejorative way. I think that,

uh, I'm checking my words here, Peter, because I don't know, uh, how spicy my language can get on your podcast, but I'll just be blunt about it in a true Cape Ratner way. I've always felt that conservatives can have an arsehole for a leader that they trust,

whereas liberals kind of need someone that they can love. And, you know, being angry, being an angry arsehole is there's a market for that. Your ranter every week, I'm sure, gets some of your your best viewer responses. But I think it's a time and place thing. And you don't want someone in the leadership of a party that is with Trump in the United States. And there are lots of even darker historical examples of what happens when you put someone with that basic DNA, that makeup and preference in positions of leadership where they're expected to represent people who didn't support them. Right. In the end, you know, I was reflecting on the question when you gave it to us that, uh, James, you spent a lot of time in the house of commons. What is it? They say, how do you determine votes in that house of commons? It's literally on division. Right. And, um, that's the way we count. Uh, Pierre Trudeau famously said that, uh, I think he was quoting somebody else, but he famously said it was a great leap forward in human development that we started making decisions by counting heads instead of breaking them.

And I think that that's good because there are, if we want to have vibrant and real democracies, there's got to be a safe place for people to disagree. And therefore, you're going to end up with some kind of division by definition. The issue is you can't create permanent encampments of people who can no longer have discussions about the common interest that they share. And in the United States, I think we're seeing a great example of what happens when people no longer believe they have a common interest. You know, we've talked about this on this podcast before, but we're now facing a situation in the U S where half of the United States thinks the other half of

the United States is a bigger threat to the United States than any external enemy. And holy smokes, we can't let that happen here are we in danger of letting that happen here i don't think there's anything special inherently special about you know we're not i used to joke about this with my american colleagues and uh in politics that you guys think it's all sunshine and unicorns up here but the politics can be really rough and there's nothing in the Canadian DNA. I think that necessarily prevents us from going down a very dark and divisive road. And we've seen, we've seen, um, tendencies, if I can put it that way on both sides of the political divide to bring us down that road. So I just, I, if there's one thing I worry about, it's taking for granted that I

remember the prime minister said in his launch speech for the leadership, which seems like a million years ago now that the country didn't happen by accident and it won't continue without effort. Right. And I think that that's a that's a message that people on all sides of the political divide need to absorb. I think there's truth in that, that there's nothing special about Canadians that we're not sort of genetically programmed to be less combative or divisive. I mean, we've had some, you know had some pretty ugly stuff in Canada, for sure. But I think there are two forces that don't exist in the Canadian political marketplace broadly. One is that in Canada, we do have more deference to authority and to government.

Of course, the United States was a revolution and constant suspicion of government. That's why you have the system set up the way it is with, you know, countervailing pressures of government that require alignment in order to get things done. Whereas in Canada, whether it's, this is a little oversimplification, but you know, whether it's sort of a monarchical tradition of sort of deference to authority culturally that we don't quite speak about, but it's kind of inherent. It also exists in the French Catholic tradition as well. Jacques Perrault and René Levesque in the past have written about

this, but that's among the reasons why there's more order in Quebec society and deference to government and to systems and structure. I think that exists more predominantly through Canadian history than has existed in the United States, and the legacy of that carries forward, the deference to authority. True. Also, the marketplace. Your first question, Peter, was about is there a market for division in politics? Because we're a country of 40 million people and not 350 or 380 million Americans, the market to profit off of dividing people doesn't exist proportionately in Canada as in the United States. In the United States, if you have a million viewers, two million viewers, that's a miniature audience.

That's a tiny audience relative to the mass of the United States. But you can make a lot of money on that, a lot of money. You can become a millionaire and sell a lot of books and a lot of T-shirts and a lot of podcasts and a lot of stuff. But that doesn't really exist in Canada. Some people are making a go of it. Some people are making some money. But the profit off of dividing society and making money and doing that in a very cruel way, it doesn't really exist in Canada.

And so that sort of that energizing force to profit off of and then therefore make it worse and worse and worse doesn't quite exist here. And I think we're totally lucky just by virtue of the size of Canada, that that hasn't taken off like it has in the United States and elsewhere. I think that's a super important point, Peter, that in the last election cycle, presidential election cycle in the United States, all parties at all levels of government, all candidates, spent $14 billion on that election. Right. And most of that got spent in the form of advertising. So the, and that's all platforms.

So whether it's Facebook or TV ads or radio or whatever, billboards, et cetera, that's a, that's an enormous economy, right? that's bigger than most provinces in in uh or many several provinces in canada and uh james is right it's not an accident that it would be ryan's previous who would say something like that because there's a whole economy associated with politics in the united states that to date although there have been incursions, we do not have in Canada. And I think that's a good thing that politics is about. It's a, it's kind of a, a multiplayer sport in Canada, where it's become the purview of a professional class in the United States

that is in it to make money more than they're in it to represent the views of their fellow citizens. It's still true in Canada. If you got $500 in your pocket and you're really angry and you can spend that money on politics, you are far better spending that money giving $250 to a national party, $250 to a local campaign, or giving $500 to somebody who's running for a nomination in Canada, that money is far better spent with better velocity, better impact in Canada than it would be in the United States, where $500, you send it to some kind of a super PAC or some third-party organization that has a single issue, whether, you know, if it's a pro-choice organization or the NRA, that money spent effectively to torque and to move votes to affect nominations and primaries in the United States.

That's probably actually logically a better spend of your money to do the voter ID and to feed the system and to do that in the United States and to do demagogic ads with real trained professionals of scale in the United States. And then it spirals up and up and up in terms of its professionalism, effectiveness, and often ugliness. But in Canada, you got that 500 bucks. You're much better off giving it to a friend who can then use that money to buy some tablets and do some door knocking and sign up some members. That's still the truth in Canada. And I'm thankful that's the case.

All right. I remember, Peter, just a story that I think your listeners will appreciate. I remember having this conversation with Barack Obama's senior advisor, David Axelrod, after the 2015 campaign, which Canadians will recall as the campaign that lasted forever, right? It was the longest campaign that we'd ever had. I think it was 78 days. And David asked me how much money we spent during the campaign. And I said, well, give or take, it was about $42 million, which at that point was the biggest budget that a national campaign had ever had in Canada. And he laughed and he said,

we spent more than that in the last month of the Florida primary. They probably spent less than that on, more than that rather on fuel that week. Right, exactly. So we do have some really important things that we should cherish and husband well in this country and our politics. Okay, I got another quote to throw at you,

but I'm going to take a quick break and come right back for that. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Moore-Butts conversation. And today we've got Jerry Butts and James Moore with us again. And it's great to launch Season 4 with their first conversation for this year. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. We're glad to have you with us.

Okay, I mentioned a second quote. And here it is. Mike Pence, who was the Vice President of the United States under Donald Trump, was in the Republican debate a couple of weeks ago. He's trying for the presidential nod this time around, not doing too well, but nevertheless he's there and a person of some stature. And so when he has something to say, it's interesting to listen to what he has to say. He had this quote in the middle of that debate.

Compromise is the opposite of leadership. Now, you know, there are a number of ways of going about governing or politicking, and one of them is to find some areas of agreement with your opposition and finding compromise, where it's possible and where it makes sense. And, you know, Canadians have got a reputation as those who are great compromise makers when compromise is needed. But that quote kind of stuck out at me.

I almost fell off my chair while I was watching that. Compromise is the opposite of leadership. So you start us on that one, Jerry. What do you make of that? Well, I think it's indicative of something James said a few minutes ago, and it's the context. He's running for leadership of his party, right? And the people who are going to select that person want to hear that they've got a true believer that they can support who isn't going to compromise with that other tribe of Americans that they despise and think are un-American,

so to speak. So it doesn't surprise me that it comes up in that context. I do think it's nonsense, frankly. I think leadership is about many things, but it's about finding common ground where people can set aside their differences and build something together that they couldn't build on their own. Right. In a nutshell, I think that's what great leaders do. And certainly the political leaders I admire, although I will say one of my political heroes, Abraham Lincoln, was not in the true sense of the word, was great divider right that sometimes a country is facing a set of questions where a group of people are on one side and a group of people are on the other and you need someone to um choose the right side frankly and refashion the institutions of the country

in that image rather than uh the the people who are in the wrong. So I do think that there are occasions when both sides are called for. But in the normal business of governing, I think it's always easier to say things and do things that inflame people's, uh, what Abraham Lincoln called the darker angels of our natures and not the, uh, the brighter ones. And it's always easier to do that. And it takes people with real courage and leadership to find common ground where none is obviously apparent. You, you, you know know a statement isn't true when it's just so simple and absolute, right?

From Vice President Pence. This is the same Vice President Pence who bragged about the compromise of the new USMCA and what it meant for the United States. So now he's running for primary, as Jerry said. So he's saying what he's saying. But to your point, Peter, though, a compromise versus a stern leadership.

Give me a Canadian example. Irwin Cotler, who has received a lot of praise because of all this academic accomplishments, public life accomplishments and so on. I remember when the Liberal government of the day put forward, it was Prime Minister Paul Martin, put forward the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada. And I was prepared to support the legislation, but I knew that the legislation would have more momentum. If, if Irwin Kotler did a couple of simple things, one was make it explicit. It's already,

it's already true in the charter of rights and freedoms that religious institutions don't have to perform and can't be forced to perform same-sex unions. If they don't want to, there is protection for religious institutions. But I told him this legislation would be strengthened if you made it explicit in the law, even though you, and he'd say, well, I don't need to, it's already, I said, just make it explicit in the legislation. And you'll, you'll be able to say that not only is in the charter, but you want to reassure Canadians that this is a fact that

religious freedom, religious independence will be protected not only in the charter, but you want to reassure Canadians that this is a fact that religious freedom, religious independence will be protected not only in the charter, but explicitly in the law. And if you look at the vote that happened in Parliament, he agreed with me. And I remember we had a conversation about it and he thought it was a good idea. And his staff went away and they came up with an amendment. So if you look at the vote that happened in the spring of 2005 on same sex marriage, the first vote that happened in Parliament was to amend the legislation to add protection for religious institutions. happened in the spring of 2005 on same-sex marriage. The first vote that happened in parliament was to amend the legislation to add protection for religious institutions. He already had the votes to pass the legislation as it was. Enough liberals, about three quarters

or more, 80, 90% of liberal MPs were voting for the bill. The bloc was in favor of the bill, all the NDP, except for minus one, Bebe de Joliet, delayed Bebe de Joliet was opposed to the bill, but he had enough votes. But he thought this would be important because it demonstrates just a little bit more reach, a little bit more compromise, a little bit more openness to critiques about protection of religious institutions, that maybe we should do this. It strengthened the bill. And in the end, there were four conservatives, myself, Gerald Keddie, well, three of us, actually, myself, Gerald Keddie and Jim Prentice, who for the legislation and I think the bill was strengthened by it. Substantively he didn't have to do it but operationally and optically, outwardly

to the public, it gave him something to say that I showed a little bit I put a little bit of water in my wine in terms of the purity of the legislation but it's perfectly fine because it speaks to what Canadians have said that they want to have equality under the law for gays and lesbians to be married, but we recognize and we want to say it explicitly and write it down, that religious institutions... It's just a small compromise that he didn't need to do that I think strengthened the legislation

and created much more consensus around the bill. Let me... Both of you have sat in major meetings with other countries where the room, you know, has been a variety of different countries with different opinions on things. I'm wondering, is this reputation that we think we have of being, you know, the great compromisers? Is it actually reflected? Have you ever actually witnessed it reflected in rooms like that? There's where there appears to be no consensus on something. Somebody looks over and says, well, Canada, you don't have to come up with consensus.

Does that actually happen? Do we really have that reputation or is that just something that we, we like to think we have? I think really have that reputation or is that just something that we like to think we have? I think we have it, Peter, in large part amongst wealthy countries, but in larger fora where there are poorer countries involved, they tend to see it, and this is a vast, this is an overgeneralization, but it's certainly what I experienced. They tend to see Canada as a country that has everything and complains too much.

That's been my experience that Canadians have in the eyes of what is fashionably called the global South these days. We have these days we have uh we don't know how good how good we have it it's sort of what prime minister crutch and said many years ago that the problem with canadians is that we have no problems and that is in general i think the way most of the developing world or emerging markets choose whatever politically correct term you want to um use to describe countries that are poorer than we are that's generally the way they see us or emerging markets, choose whatever politically correct term you want to use to describe countries that are poorer than we are. That's generally the way they see us.

Well, but firmness in principle is an important thing because it allows you the room and the margin in order to compromise, I suppose, on things going forward. But steadfast is something, for example, the broad Canadian solidarity in support of Ukraine is an important one. The broad Canadian solidarity that exists in support of Israel's right to exist is another one. The Canadian consensus on fighting apartheid in South Africa, another one in the past. But to Terry's point, it's true that Canadians also need to understand, yes, we're a member of the G7.

Yes, we're a member of Five Eyes. But, you know, we are also a member of five eyes but you know we are also a very privileged country in terms of where we are surrounded by oceans um sitting atop the united states benefiting from that economy we have the security blanket as well um so we have all that i remember a circumstance it was i was with prime minister harper in um in berlin uh with a bilateral meeting with Angela Merkel. And Prime Minister Harper was, he made the point that I think the world, there's a consensus that the world wanted to make at the time that Vladimir

Putin is a rising threat. It's a real problem. And boy, it would be great if Germany would, would come along and support and say no to increase Russian energy into the German economy. And I can see Angela Merkel just looking at Stephen Harper and Stephen Harper knew that he had to say it. She knew he had to say it. It's important for it to be said, but he knew that she knew that he had to say it.

And he knew that she knew that and that she would very easily lash back and say, you do realize it's a little more complicated here you do realize we've got thousands of refugees from isis pouring into our country you do realize we've got a little bit of a history here of welcoming people into the german you know body politic and what that looks like and the kind of blow you do realize that our energy mix is a little bit more complicated you do realize that the berlin wall came down not that you do like you know you sort of see her just just begging to launch into a lecture but she was of course one of the great states people of the past century in the context in which she was governing and she held it all back and there

was sort of this diplomatic dance that he had to say it, she had to say it. But with respect, Canada, stay in your lane. Our world's a little bit more complicated than just stand up to Putin because he needs to get out of Ukraine. A little more complicated, a little more nuanced when you're talking about people's ability to heat their homes and our ability to stay united as a country, given the history of the past two centuries in Europe. Though I will point out that Stephen Harper was 100% right about that, and Angela Merkel was 100% wrong. Can you replay that, Peter?

Go ahead and use that as a bumper. That would be nice. That's right. But it is absolutely true, and I certainly heard this from people. I still hear it from people in my current line of work that Harper was, he had, he looked as George Bush stupidly and famously said that he looked into Vladimir Putin's soul.

Stephen Harper kind of did. He knew who he was and it took the world, especially the European world a lot longer to come around to that than was good for them as it turned out. Okay, I've got time for one quick last question. I've floated these quotes by somebody who I have a lot of respect for the other day to see what they thought of it. Say hi to Chelle chantelle for us it wasn't chantelle but it was uh it was uh there were some similarities between this person and and chantelle on the on the way they think um anyway i ran these quotes uh by them and i said what do you what does that make you feel? And her answer was, it makes me feel not safe.

And, you know, that's the combination of the, you know, the division, you know, is winning, division is profit, you know, compromise isn't leadership. And given the polarization of today, mainly south of the border, but as you've both conceded, there's a degree of that here as well, it makes her feel not safe. Do you two feel safe with the current kind of attitudes and atmosphere that surrounds not just politics, but the kind of political debate, not necessarily by politicians, but by people who are entering into the debate.

Do you feel safe? I do. I do because I think at the end of the day, human nature strives for reason. Human nature strives for calm, comfort, compromise. At the end of the day, our rational self-interest is to is to get along and to have a sense of human and social solidarity. So at the end of the day, we can flex and flare. But I think that that we will ultimately end up in the right spot. There are genuine reasons for concern. I worry about the rise of economic nationalism because the rise of economic

nationalism is one step away from ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is one step away from military conflict because you can say that the other is the, it's not that we have disagreements about economic arrangements, but that they are different because of who they are, not just how they organize their economy. So I worry about economic nationalism becoming ethnic nationalism, becoming nationalism versus nationalism and what that means over time. I worry about the Canada-US relationship and Trump 2.0.

And if he were to abrogate NAfta in the future because of this again rising sense of anxiety in the united states which is amongst some americans which is bizarre because the american economy is still growing unemployment is going down the economy is doing well but there's clearly an underclass of people who are angry and motivated and distrustful of the system who have been who have been um whipped up into a pretty aggressive frenzy and and what how that spits out at the back end of politics i'm anxious about i'm anxious about how how the world resettles um post vladimir putin should his his invasion of ukraine be i'm anxious about the about china and the instability there and what that looks like in the future,

because it's unsustainable what's going on. So a lot of reasons to be concerned. But I think here in our cocoon of Canada, I think we have responsible leaders. I think we are lucky to have people of substance and impressive capacity leading in Canada. You know, I think about Pierre Poliev and who he is, his background as a presumptive alternative prime minister. We have our incumbent prime minister. I think Canadians crave for leaders who are substantive, thoughtful,

empathetic, and reasoned and measured in a very complicated world. And I think we have those personalities now in the past. And I think in the, in the near future, Jerry, you get the last word. I I've never felt personally unsafe in the, in the near future, Jerry, you get the last word. I've never felt personally unsafe in politics, though I have feared for my kids. I'll be totally honest about that. I, I had, uh, you know, my, the circumstances under which I quit politics four years ago was, um,

it didn't, it wasn't a comfortable environment, right. It was not, uh, uh not people would take pictures of your house and it was on the national news and we had reporters in the driveway there. advocates for political violence and given the opportunity that they would, they would do things that most Canadians would like to think are unthinkable. And so, yeah, I've worried about it in the past about my family. I've certainly worried about the prime minister's security at different times. And I think it's important that I want to believe what James said. I remember having meetings with the Muslim community in Quebec after the mosque mass murder in Quebec City. I remember talking to people who were terrified. Right. And they had, I think, good justification for being terrified. So we have a long history of political violence in Canada and just ask any minority community or in particular the indigenous community. So I think that there are good reasons to be afraid. And the more that, and I do agree with James that for the most part,

we've had political leaders that, that are allergic to that kind of rhetoric and for good reason. But I do, I worry about the, to bring the conversation full circle, the, the tone and rhetoric and, uh, the kind of statements that have become acceptable political discourse on social media in particular, but not exclusively on social media. And I can see why people are afraid. I really can't. And I worry about it myself. The best thing that can happen to our politics, Peter, is that political parties, when they're trying to woo people into running for office, is they're honest with them about politics.

A lot of people have run for office because parties and natural campaign managers and so have talked them into running and convinced them. This is great. And then a lot of people run for office because they think it's all balloon drops and speeches and praise. And here we go. And all the upside is not. And as Jerry described his struggles and the things that he went through, everybody has their story. When I, when I left politics, because of my son's health and because I was 15 years in five terms and i was it was time

for me to go but and i talked about my son's health and the surgeries that he has coming up and i had people putting pictures of him on websites that are still out there and people actually having an active debate about my son's disabilities and whether or not i'm lying about it and and people actually using the word retarded and whether or not my son really does have challenges and pinch zooming in and looking at his head. That stuff's going to be online forever. He's going to see that one day. I was on an ISIS hit list. I had garbage put in my driveway. I was threatened with violence many times. And that will come to people in the future as well. And I think a lot of people are blown away by that. I'm a big guy and I can handle it. I was in politics all my life is from 16 years old until I retired from politics at 39.

So I was kind of aware of it and I was in a gut worse and worse, but I was aware of all that world. A lot of people aren't and they're naive to it and they're going to get in and they're going to get blown up and blown away by how brutal it can be. The best thing that can happen to our politics is that political parties internally develop systems to soberly protect people, train them up and make sure that they're prepared for what's coming. They have the tools, they have the awareness of what's coming and they isolate themselves from the worst of it.

They know how to think about it and they seek help when they feel mentally tortured by some of the stuff that's out there and how cruel people can be to each other. We can be extraordinarily cruel because people dare to disagree with us. And it's really, really awful. So the best thing that can happen in our politics is that political parties figure out a way to take care of their people, take care of the people who offer themselves for public office and support them because it can be really, really brutal. Okay. We're going to, that was quite the message from both of you. And I,

I appreciate the fact that you were also forthcoming on all the questions today. It was a great conversation and look forward to the next one. So James, Jerry, thank you. And it truly was a great conversation. Again,

we're butts. Going around the track on this issue of how you put forward your message in an era of polarization, of differences, hard-held differences. So the opportunity to talk to these two fellows, both with lots of political experience, James Moore, of course, former Conservative cabinet minister, as he said, you know, through multiple election campaigns, and Gerry Butts, who's seen election campaigns from the other side in the sense of helping organize them and leading them, as opposed to running himself in them. Jerry Butts, the former principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau.

Appreciate their time very much and look forward, as I said, to the next time we have a conversation, a more Butts conversation. We're almost out of time, but I wanted to throw in one little end bit to keep our, you know, I promised a long time ago we would keep in touch with the climate story through different ways. And one of them is with this latest end bit. It's out of the Washington Post from last week. For the first time on record, storms have

reached top tier category five strength in every tropical ocean basin in the same year. A combination of human-caused climate change and El Nino have heated ocean waters to record levels in 2023. And you know, we're only eight and a half months into it. Setting the stage for this meteorological feat, the Copernicus Climate Service of the European Union confirmed that the global ocean reached its warmest level on record in August. This past week alone, two tropical cyclones leaped to Category 5 intensity in two days. Hurricane Jova in the northeastern Pacific, closely followed by Hurricane Lee in the Atlantic. The pair of storms intensified with astonishing haste, their peak winds increasing 90 mph and 85 mph, respectively, in 24 hours.

Meteorologists monitor seven tropical ocean basins around the world for storm development, in addition to the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. Category 5 storms formed in the other five basins earlier this year. So there you go. And we've seen the devastation some of these storms can cause. All right, a quick look ahead. Tomorrow, it's Tuesday, so you know what that means. Brian Stewart will be by with the latest on Ukraine and some very interesting stuff from a new book.

And it talks about the relationship between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Biden of the United States. And you might find this quite surprising. We're also going to check in with Dr. Lisa Barrett in Halifax. Lots of you have been writing, what do I do about this? Is there a COVID surge? What should I do? What should I take?

How should I act? So we'll talk to Dr. Barrett again. And it's been a while since she's been on the program, and it's great that she'll be back with us tomorrow. So I look forward to that. Okay, that's it for this day. Wednesday, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth, Bruce Anderson. Thursday, The Random Ranter.

Got lots of you talking on housing, and your turn. And Friday, of course, is Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce. That's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. It's been a treat, as always, to talk with you. And we'll talk to you again in 24 hours.