CRINGEWORTHY? HELL, YEAH, HE'S CRINGEWORTHY.

Many people find him off-putting. They call him and his wife cringeworthy. And he is, without a doubt. His trip to India a few years ago, complete with family dress-up as a well-to-do Indian family going to a wedding was, frankly, embarrassing. He has a tendency to smile too much, to pose for selfies with people, to sound giddy and over-joyed when conversing with others. His speeches, especially in the early years of his government, were often too much laced with hyperbole and over-praising ( remember his toast to the Queen in year one of his government?). Opponents take these things and claim that he is too child-like and just "not ready" to govern.

Recent incidents are more serious. His "brownface" photos, taken 18 years ago when he was dressing up for a costume party, were offensive to most. He shouldn't have done that, but I won't say more at this point for risk of becoming a hypocrite myself. And the SNC-Lavalin affair was a very serious mistake, although to call the incident a "scandal" is far too extreme. ( If it is scandalous, let the RCMP investigate and bring charges: hasn't happened yet. ) The departure of high profile female cabinet ministers and a MP didn't help his cause.

He flipped on the issue of electoral reform. He infamously claimed that the 2015 election would be "the last under the First Past The Post" system. Then, he dropped electoral reform like a hot potato without much explanation. People have, quite correctly, pointed out this as a serious error in judgement. He should not have said what he said, but, when the phrase was out there, he should have at least had the pretense of investigating electoral reform instead of shelving it completely.

And his government claims to be in favour of action on climate change and the environment. Yet, his government bought the floundering Trans Mountain pipeline project, in which an existing pipeline would be doubled in capacity. Environmentalists and many First Nations howl with anger at this, claiming that he can't be serious about climate change and still own a petroleum pipeline.

All these seem to suggest that this man should not get any support in this upcoming election. We should not vote for him. We should send him packing.

I say that this is utter nonsense. He should be given one more chance. We should vote for him and his party. Why? Let me explain.

On the issue of his cringeworthiness. Yes, it's embarrassing, but so what ? Others dress up to try to curry favour with various groups at various times. Have you seen photos of the other politicians at the Calgary Stampede ? Or when they are being accorded a high honour by a First Nation ? Or attending an international conference or summit. Trudeau tends to be a bit over the top, but that's because he likes costumes. How many of you like costumes? Sure, there's a line to be drawn and he's gone over it, but that's not enough to hang him. And smiling and selfies ? Come on …. he's friendly and a "people-person" … nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's a strength.

On the issue of his "brownface" photos. They were apparently taken in 2001 … 18 years ago. He was 28 years old, not a kid to be sure, but still a young man. He probably only had a vague idea that he was going to go into politics back then, and probably didn't have a firm idea that he would eventually become Prime Minister. He was determined to win a costume party contest. He was single and posed with several nice looking young women: was he hoping to get laid? Without a doubt. Attitudes toward such costumes weren't as firm almost 20 years ago as they are now. I did it back in the 70's with the same intent as Trudeau probably had. Was he ( and I ) trying to provoke some white supremacist agenda? Hell, no. Should he ( or I ) have done it back in the day. Also, hell no. But he ( and I ) did and apologies have come out and embarrassment has been registered. Will it happen again ? Hell no, it won't. So, move on.

On the issue of the SNC-Lavalin affair, I have already written. To summarize, he did something that has been done before ( trying to get a "deferred prosecution agreement" ) for SNC in order to help that company stay in Quebec and preserve jobs. Should he have pressured his Attorney-General to assist in getting the dpa ? Well, no, although I suspect that this has happened before and will happen again. What role did Jody Wilson-Reybould play in the subsequent embarrassing situation ? A HUGE role, and I assert that she and her friend Jane Philpott and others did so with Machiavellian political motives to upset and replace Trudeau as leader. So, again, we must move on …. unless, down the road, there's an RCMP investigation. More will be written later, perhaps.

On electoral reform. This one is something he'd like to have back for sure. Any kind of electoral reform must surely have some amendment to the Constitution, and every government since Pierre Trudeau has learned NOT to open up the Constitution again, for fear of every wing-nut with a cause or issue to come forward and demand that it be included in any Constitutional consideration. As Mulroney learned, to his cost, with Meech Lake, try this at your peril. Trudeau promised too quickly and then had to backtrack, a correct move, but handled clumsily. Again, we move on.

On the issue of the pipeline, and the environment in general. The pipeline, first of all, is NOT a new pipeline. It already exists. This initiative is twinning the existing pipeline in order to double its capacity of delivering Alberta crude to tidewater for export. It makes sense, even though it is very expensive and potentially damaging to the environment should a spill take place. But Trudeau killed all new pipeline plans … also correctly. And his government has stated that, while environmental reform is necessary, it simply can't proceed as quickly as people like Elizabeth May have suggested. We need time to make the transition. Meanwhile, other pro-environmental initiatives move forward. Trudeau's Liberals have a good, not great plan, and unlike the Green plan, it will work. Will it work in time ? We all have to hope so. And, unlike Andrew Scheer and his colleagues, Trudeau has a plan. Scheer does not.

Relations with First Nations are strained. They always have been. They always will be. I say this without being cynical. First Nations are NOT one homogenous group. There are several First Nations, each with their own agendas, each with their own demands, all legitimate. And the First Nations are skilled negotiators and skilled in public relations. Progress must be made, but, like the environment, progress is painfully slow. Trudeau has acknowledged the Report on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls … has Scheer ? No. Trudeau has pledged to continue to work on Indigenous issues. Scheer has not.

In his favour are several things: first, the economy is moving along nicely. Unemployment is down to historic lows. Real estate continues to move along nicely. The stock market is performing as "normal", whatever that means. How much credit should Trudeau take? None, actually, but no other government should either, but they all do. So, he gets to claim that the economy is doing well under his watch. Secondly, he delivered on his pledge to legalize the sale, distribution and ownership of marijuana. The roll-out in Ontario has not been smooth, but that's a provincial error, not Trudeau's.  Third, he said he'd move ahead on doctor-assisted death, a sensitive issue, but one which most Canadians wanted, and he delivered. Third, he has moved to assist in the settling of refugees in Canada, a noble and justified act. Many don't like this, but that's another issue that reflects more on the critics than it does on Trudeau. Despite the critics' fears, there's been no parade of ISIS fighters down my town's Main Street, and I doubt it's happened in yours either. In other words, we HAVE NOT been "swamped" by these people. We can take them in and help them. We're a big, rich country. Fourth, he was blind-sided by the madman who occupies the White House on the issue of NAFTA. Trudeau was handed a difficult and time-consuming assignment: negotiate a new NAFTA that somehow appeases Trump, but doesn't harm Canada. His government did so, with patience and class. Great credit goes to Chrystia Freeland for this, but Trudeau was the Prime Minister, and nothing happened without his knowledge, input or permission. He did well. Finally, despite what Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott claim, Trudeau IS a feminist, and he supports equality of the genders in government as far as he is able and espouses feminist causes internationally and domestically. He walks the walk.

Therefore, he deserves a second chance at being Prime Minister. It may be because the alternatives are not palatable or possible. That's fine. Better the devil you know. But it is also because Trudeau has, despite his many flaws, a good track record and will continue to have one.

But, because of his flaws, he now has a short shelf-life. If he wins, even a short minority, he has to govern wisely. And then, he has to leave. No third term for him. His flaws have made him less "sunny" to Canadians.

And the next Prime Minister has to be female. No if's, and's, or but's. It has to happen.

THE BIG TENT ?

Trying to understand Canadian Conservatives today is a lot like understanding an iceberg. You see some of it clearly and above the surface and you think, "yeah, that's it … I've got it. I understand what an iceberg is." But, of course, most of the iceberg is below the surface, menacing, dangerous and beyond what we can see. I'm pretty sure the captain of the Titanic thought he understood icebergs before that fateful voyage in April of 1912: how did that work out for him?

Conservatives like to refer to themselves as a "big tent." The meaning is pretty clear. The big tent has plenty of room for everyone, no matter who you are. It sounds inviting, doesn't it ? Lots of nice people, gathering together, keeping warm, sharing some stories and laughs. Rather like a great big sleep-over.

Well, let's open the flaps of this big tent and see who's inside.

The notion of the "big tent" began to take shape in Canada with the merger of the old Progressive Conservative party and the upstart Reform Party in the 1990's. The former party was fairly traditional, popular with many Canadians, mostly because of its rather oxymoronic name. How you could combine "progressive" and "conservative" into one phrase defies logic, but somehow, the PC's managed to make it work. It was the party of John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, John Robarts and Bill Davis. Bland, dull and steady, they formed governments that, mostly, worked well. But they weren't conservative enough for many in western Canada, who were tired of the PC's losing more than they were winning. Hence, the birth of the Reform Party of Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. But there was a problem: as long as two conservative parties ran candidates in federal elections, the Liberals cleaned up. So, conservatives did what they do best: they had a nasty internal civil war in which the Reformers beat up the PC's and created the new and quite successful Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), inviting Reformers and PC's and anyone else who wanted to join their "big tent". Who came in?

Traditional capitalists and the business class are in there. No surprise here: going back to the days of

Sir John A. Macdonald and the original Conservative Party, the business class has had their interests looked after by politicians on the political right. Business favours politicians who don't rock the boat, who are steady and unchanging, and who generally believe that government should get out of the way of business and let economy chug along unhindered, or at least with a minimum amount of political interference. Yes, capitalists are in the big tent.

But look ! Alongside the business class are rural Canadians, those noble folk who till the land and tame the beasts and provide us with our food. Living out in the hinterland, they have always been conservative in nature out of suspicion of city slickers, fast talkers and flesh merchants. Actually, rural Canadians have legitimate grievances against their urban cousins, mainly because they are outnumbered by the city folk, and because they feel urbanites don't pay attention to their concerns. Farmers have always been in the big tent, and they always will be.

Let's see … who else? Ah, religious fundamentalists are here too, mostly Christian, but not exclusively so. Well, God and Jesus must've been conservative, right? Well, not Jesus surely …. a bit of a radical. Oh wait, we're not talking about the actual Jesus of the New Testament, we're talking about the Jesus of evangelicals. Those who don't need any intermediary to understand the will of God because God actually talks to them. Evangelicals have a complete monopoly on morality and proper behavior and shrink away from liberals, intellectuals and non-believers as though they were Satan himself. Gays and transgendered people are obviously sinners and the spawn of the devil. Minorities are inferior because they don't look like the pictures of the Jesus that THEY see: pale white skin, blondish hair, blue eyes, smiling despite the wounds. Yep, religious fundamentalists are in there all right.

And lookee this ! Xenophobes are here. Like their evangelical cousins, they don't like people who don't look, sound, act or think like them. Forget about the possibility that other ideas or cultures might be rich and beautiful: if it's different, they don't want it. They don't understand how people can be different. Xenophobes do NOT want minorities to be in the big tent, but understand that some of them have to be there because they might vote conservative for various (mostly economic) reasons: just keep them in a different corner of the tent, please.

There's something moving in the darkest corner. Ah, we can see them: militarists, gun lovers, militia members, lonely men who can't get laid, violent video game players. There they are, skulking in the shadows of the tent. Why are they here? No one else would have them, and they can't stay in their parents' basement forever. The big tent has mostly males anyway, so, as long as they don't have to interact with the few women or minorities, they're happy to stay there and play until they get really angry and decide to shoot something: hopefully, just on their video games.

Are there any women in the tent? Well, look around and you'll see …. lots of men. Wait, there's a

woman …. and over there, another one. Oh, and a few more scattered here and there. Hmmm, they don't seem happy somehow. More like "content" to be here. As long as there are strong, wise men, these women are content to be here, making about 80% of the money the men make, letting the men decide all the nasty stuff regarding reproductive rights because these women hate their own nasty bodies and don't want to get upset having to decide all that stuff. Besides, the tent needs some hostesses to serve drinks and food, right?

Who else do we have ? Well, over by the big group of capitalists are workers who look up to their bosses because they believe that, one day, these workers will be bosses too, or at least rich when their stock portfolios finally pay off. No unions for these folks ! And even if they don't become the next Donald Trump, it doesn't matter: they've got jobs and are just thankful to have them. Um, they still have jobs, don't they ? Oh, the jobs are going oversees ? Or taken over by machines ? Ah, who wants to work anyway? Their stock portfolios are just about due to come in big.

Hmm, we've seen enough of this. Time to get out of the tent and get some air. Why?

Because modern Canadian Conservativism isn't a big tent after all.

It's a hot mess.