Bart's Books: Deadly Fall

After a campaign like that, we can all use a bit of political detox. Me, I'll be Just Visiting New York for the next week. I've got a few blog posts time stamped to go up, so there will be action going on here - just don't expect a lot of fresh reaction to all the NDP MP gaffes-du-jour.

And if you are looking for a bit of political detox of your own, allow me to suggest purchasing Deadly Fall - a hot new mystery novel by an author who also happens to be my mom.

Given the obvious bias, I won't pretend to give an impartial review. I'll simply say that I loved it, and I'm sure you will too! The novel is set in Calgary, and there is a local (fictional?) politician as one of the suspects, so you might get a kick out of that.

The synopsis is below - be sure to check it out.

Deadly Fall
by Susan Calder
TouchWood Editions March 15, 2011 Hardcover

Paula Savard's life has stalled. Her lukewarm love life, job as an insurance adjuster and grownup children are more frustrating than exciting. However, she gets more than she asked for when her once best friend, Callie, is murdered while jogging to Paula's inner-city Calgary home. The police suggest Callie was coming to Paula for help, which is news to Paula since they hadn''t seen each other in ages. Soon, Paula's suspicions zero in on Callie's new husband, Sam.

An ill-considered investigation turns personal for Paula when she begins to get close to Sam, but is Sam's interest a front to trick Paula? Lies begin accumulating. Suddenly, Paula's not sure who she should protect and who she should fear. As the truth reveals itself, Paula hatches a plan to draw the killer out. The plan's success would not only allow her to solve the murder, but also give her life a fresh start.

Bart's Books - Straight From the Heart 2

After finishing up the Mulroney tome, it was time for another round of prime ministerial memoirs - Jean Chretien’s My Years as Prime Minister. Reading the two back to back means this review will likely feature a lot of comparisons between the books which might not be fair because the two are vastly different.

Mulroney approached his almost as a historical essay on his time in office, going into lengthy detail on most decisions and arguing his case vociferously with as much supporting evidence as he could find. Chretien’s book, meanwhile, is ghostwritten in the same folksy style as Straight from the Heart and you get the sense that he didn’t approach it with the same intensity that Mulroney did. From the start, he’s frank that his book isn’t a weighty account of his time in office since that “should be left to the historians and scholars”. The result is a book that is written at a lower political reading level than Mulroney’s; it’s clearly targeted more to the mainstream population than to political junkies. Elections and “inside baseball” government decisions are glossed over and content is grouped by subject rather than chronologically.

Because of this, My Years as Prime Minister cannot be considered the defining book on the Chretien years – there’s probably more meat in the Eddie Goldeberg, Lawrence Martin, or Susan Delacourt books. Where Chretien's memoirs excel is by treating the reader to very personal recollections of events like the break in to 24 Sussex, the “Shawinigan handshake”, and non-political conversations with the likes of Bill Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, Tiger Woods, and Fidel Castro. On the downside, major accomplishments of Chretien’s government like Same Sex Marriage recognition or the innovation agenda seem glossed over. Contrary to Peter C. Newman’s review, Chretien does use a considerable amount of ink on the various “gate” scandals that hit his government, although he does dismiss Adscam rather off handedly. It is a shame that the book ends with his resignation as Prime Minister, if only because Chretien recounting his “golf ball” testimony at the Gomery inquiry would have been quite enjoyable.

Chretien admits in the introduction that he couldn’t bring himself to write a “warts and all” recap of those close to him although he is certainly willing to point out the warts on Paul Martin. In his review, Cherniak concludes that Chretien’s jabs are uncalled for because Martin wasn’t planning a putsch. Well, maybe. And, if you’re in the 4% of the population who believe Martin wasn’t organizing against Chretien, you’ll probably find Jean a bit vindictive in this book. But really, he doesn’t dwell on it, he’s a lot nicer than Sheila Copps was, and, with the exception of his Afghanistan jab, you don’t get the sense that Chretien is going out of his way to smear Martin in this book the way Mulroney set out to attack his enemies. Instead, he tries to get his revenge by pushing hard on the story that he wouldn’t have run for a third term if Martin hadn’t been organizing against him – true, or not, (and I have some doubts) it is somewhat fitting to think of Martin’s over ambition as being the cause of his downfall.

Apart from Martin, the only former Cabinet Minister getting a noticeable amount of attention is Stephane Dion, who Chretien says nothing but good things about. This is probably partly to help the party out but you really do get the sense that Dion was his favourite Cabinet Minister. It was Aline Chretien who suggested he bring Dion into politics and the two men worked closely together on the unity file which was near and dear to Chretien’s heart. Like Mulroney, this was probably the issue he felt strongest about, even if his view was vastly different from Brian’s. Reading the two books back to back, it’s amazing just how different their recaps of the constitution repatriation, Meech Lake, and Charlottetown accord were…the two didn’t agree on much except from their disdain for Lucien Bouchard. It was also interesting to hear of Chretien’s frequent behind the scenes discussions with Trudeau on unity topics – although Trudeau appears to have influenced his former Cabinet Minister’s view of federalism, the two did disagree at times on the more pragmatic side of politics.

If you’re looking for a detailed recap of the Chretien years, then there are probably better reference sources. But Chretien has injected so much life into his memoirs that it will certainly make for an enjoyable read, even for those who aren’t huge political buffs. Because of that, I imagine Chretien’s book will find its way into more stockings this Christmas than Mulroney’s (also, it would take a really big stocking to hold Mulroney’s book).



Recommendation: Certainly worth asking Santa for it, even if you only have a passing interest in politics.



For more Chretien goodness, be sure to check out Jean and Rick's return to Harveys.



A copy of the book was provided by Random House for review

Bart's Books - Mulroney's Memoirs

It’s been interesting reading through Brian Mulroney's Memoirs over the past two weeks, especially given the whirlwind of controversy that has enveloped him. Although the book is over a thousand pages long, it’s a great source of information and fascinating enough that I could probably have read another couple hundred pages. And even though Mulroney is arrogant, spiteful, and incredibly self-biased throughout the book, I can’t help but feeling a little bit sorry for him over the Schreiber stuff. And that sympathy alone is proof enough that he has injected some personal humanity into the book. In short, Memoirs is one of the best political books I’ve read in years.

Unlike Bill Clinton’s equally lengthy autobiography, Mulroney doesn’t dwell on his childhood and plunges into content that will appeal to politicos within 30 pages. Mulroney’s recap of young Tory events, political conventions, and his early encounters with politicians of the day like Diefenbaker or Paul Martin Sr. are as interesting as the stories from his time as PM. Mulroney also manages to tie early events to later ones by including journal entries from his time as PM throughout the book.

As for the man himself and his record? Mulroney was one of the most successful Prime Ministers on the international scene in Canadian history. He led the charge against apartheid in South Africa, negotiated Acid Rain and Free Trade treaties with the Americans, and certainly appears to have managed G7 politics with finesse – at least by his accounts. Given the amount of ink he uses to recount his many fights with Margaret Thatcher on apartheid, it’s clear that Mulroney regards it as his finest accomplishment as Prime Minister and he certainly deserves full marks for moving Canada into a leadership role internationally on the file.

That’s the good. As you might expect, Mulroney glosses over the black marks on his government. The parade of ministerial resignations is casually ignored and some clever accounting numbers are used to paint his lackluster economic record in a positive light. However, Mulroney does anything but ignore his largest failing – instead, the national unity struggles of the day are centre stage throughout the book.

Mulroney’s university thesis was on Quebec politics and he won the PC leadership on a promise of a Quebec breakthrough. For Mulroney, this was really his raison d'être in politics and, because of that, he considers the end of Meech “a death in the family” that has left him with “a throbbing sense of loss for one of the greatest might-have-beens in Canada’s 140 year history”. It’s truly remarkable just how many references Mulroney makes to Meech throughout the book and how virulent and vindictive he becomes when discussing the deal which was “suffocated in a cruel act of political infanticide by the premier of Newfoundland.” That’s just one of at least 20 or 30 pejorative references to Clyde Wells throughout the book. And Wells got off easy compared to the man who haunts Mulroney still.

When Memoirs was first launched, there was a big brouhaha over its attacks on Trudeau. Mulroney is a vicious critic of the 1982 constitutional repatriation in the book and takes every opportunity to belittle Trudeau and his accomplishments. The weird thing is, the journal entries pre-1987 where Trudeau is mentioned are mostly positive – it's clear that Mulroney can’t forgive Trudeau for having the audacity to speak out against a constitutional deal that P.E.T. (and many Canadians) clearly could not accept on an intellectual level. Just as it was Trudeau’s right to attack Meech, Mulroney certainly has the right to fight back in his memoirs but he loses all credibility when he resorts to ad hominen attacks, trying to discredit Trudeau because he didn’t serve in the military 40 years before the Meech affair (and, in that sentence, the “he didn’t serve in the military” refers to Trudeau, although it should could just as easily apply to Brian). It appears Mulroney himself would agree with my assessment in a deliciously ironic passage, just 12 pages after his attack on Trudeau’s military record:

I may well be wrong, but I think [Trudeau] mitigated whatever value his arguments might otherwise command by such a violent and vicious diatribe against so many people –living and dead – that he appears unhinged.

But these are just the sort of fun contradictions that make the book an enjoyable read, even for Liberals. How can you do anything but chuckle when Mulroney attacks the Liberals for their free trade flip flop when he railed against Crosbie’s free trade proposal during the ’83 PC leadership convention? Or when he attacks Joe Clark for allowing provinces to opt out of a federal program? That’s all to be expected in a memoir and when I move on to Chretien’s after this, I wouldn’t expect it to be any different. After all, this is Mulroney’s version of events, not a historical dissertation. A historical dissertation might say that criticism of Mulroney over his lack of experience in ’76 was fair game. A historical account might conclude that the Tories ’88 victory was not solely because of Mulroney’s soaring popularity. A historical account might not quote hundreds of positive newspaper stories about the PM and then dismiss all criticism as being part of media bias.

That said, as a historical document this book is incredibly invaluable. Appendices at the end recap behind-the-scenes conversations between the PM and Premiers about Meech and Charlottetown. And, having written a history essay or two on this time period during my years at University, I would have loved to have a resource like this book to get the official Mulroney position on such a wide range of topics. Beyond that, Memoirs works as popular political literature too. Getting a glimpse of private conversations between Mulroney and the likes of Reagan, Thatcher, and Gorbachev makes the book worth its sticker price ($50 in Canada, $40 in the US). And the chapter where Mulroney recounts the betrayal of Lucien Bouchard has everything you could want in a political book. Compared to current hot topic political debates on Senate abolition and 1% GST cuts, the content of this book is quite riveting.

So, despite his flaws – or maybe because of them – Mulroney has written a truly impressive memoir.


Recommendation: Get a hard cover copy. Personally, I'm very glad to have a signed copy.

Other Reviews: Jason Cherniak, Pample the Moose, Kerplonka

A copy of this book was provided by Random House for review.

Bart's Books - Rick's Rants

Satirist and sporadic blogger Rick Mercer has a new book out this fall, cleverly titled "Rick Mercer Report: The Book". Unfortunately, there's nothing really new, per se, in the book. It's a transcript of Rick's rants and blog postings from the past couple years. That's a shame too, because Rick could certainly put together something the caliber of America: The Book. I know Will Ferguson has written Canadian political humour in some detail, but I think there's some fresh ground to be covered and Mercer is certainly the man to best do it.


That's not to say that his book isn't enjoyable. Even though I watch his show on a weekly basis, a lot of the jokes seemed new to me and I was lol'ing quite a lot. It certainly makes for an easy book to read on the bus (as supposed to, say, Mulroney's autobiography) in bits and pieces.

So, rather than a full review, I present some of my favourite highlights from the book for your enjoyment:





You remember Focus on the Family. They’re the ones who think that SpongeBob SquarePants is gay. Take a look at their website – these people think about gay sex more than gay people do.


And, tragically, watching a few thousand socially retarded adults jump up and down [at the Liberal leadership convention] and wave signs with someone else’s name on it is what passes for excitement.


I’m not saying [appointing Fortier] was easy for Stephen Harper. It must be hard to look all your MPs in the eye and tell them they’re imbeciles.


From the teleprompter of Michael Ignatieff: “It has been almost one year now since I made the difficult decision to immigration to Canada and run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Since that time I have taken clear positions on difficult issues and I have taken difficult positions on clear issues. Unfortunately, people do not seem to understand what I am talking about. If anyone is at fault here it is me; please bear with me, Canada, I am used to teaching the advanced class."


And Quebec…cripes, if you’re a federalist in Quebec, you couldn’t get elected as a prostate examiner.


The Conservative ad where they’ve taken the ugly picture of Paul Martin and turned him red so he looks like Satan is very effective. By and large, Canadians do not like the idea of being governed by Satan, no matter how well the economy is doing. And then there are the Liberal ads. These have shown that while negative ads work, stupid ads don’t. Because the Liberals have taken stupid to a whole new level. It’s an art now. It’s like the Liberals woke up one morning and said, “You know, Canadians, they think we’re arrogant and corrupt. Let’s add stunned to the list and make it a hat trick.”


Wouldn’t our 60 million in aid be better off going to Sudan [rather than China] – which, you know, doesn’t have a space program?


Now they’ve gone completely off their heads. Martin is spending like Belinda Stronach in a shoe store.


And what’s Quebec going to do with that money? They’re going to give the people a personal income tax cut. That noise you can hear is the sound of blood vessels bursting in the heads of Tory voters across the country.


So if you are dead or near dead, hurry now and give your body to the party – all leadership candidates are looking for support from dead people. Bob Rae, for example, has recently accepted the public endorsement of Hedy Fry.


Meanwhile, the new leader of the Liberal party’s out there running around, and he’s wearing so much green he’s looking like some sort of demented Keebler elf.


This must be driving Donald Rumsfeld completely nuts. Suddenly the only thing standing between him and his Buck Rodgers missile shield is a nation of pot-smoking, homo-loving peaceniks.







Book Recommendation: Pick it up in the bargain bin



A copy of this book was provided by Random House for review

Bart's Books - The Black Swan

After some prodding by Gauntlet, I decided to take a read through The Black Swan and, I must say, I’m glad I did. It’s simply one of the most thought provoking books I’ve read in a long time.

So what is The Black Swan about? Well, statistics. And history. And economics. And philosophy. And pretty much everything else under the sun. Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn’t really touch on politics except for a few veiled shots at the stupidity of thinking liberating Iraq would be a walk in the park, but the black swan principle certainly has some very useful applications to politics - I’ll get to that in a second.

First, the book. The Black Swan is about randomness. Not controlled randomness like casinos, but about things that we just don’t see coming that change the world. 9/11 would be a black swan. The dominance of the internet and of Google would be a black swan, because no one would have even conceived of it a decade before it happened. In politics, the 1993 election, featuring the rise of the BQ and Reform Party, would be a major black swan since no one saw it coming. Kim Campbell certainly didn’t think the party of John A would be down to a pair of seats and, at most, the Bloc was just a temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition that no one believed would ever become her majesty’s loyal opposition.

NNT takes this somewhat basic concept of the black swan and explores it from several angles. He divides the world into mediocristan and extremistan. In mediocristan, you don’t get big outliers or deviations. So body weight would be in mediocristan because one person, no matter how many Tim Hortons triple chocolate donuts he eats, will never deviate dramatically from the average body weight. Something like wealth would be in extremistan since a guy like Bill Gates can really skew the average. Events in extremistan are susceptible to black swans which is why war casualties, stock market crashes, and disease outbreaks can come out of nowhere to dramatically change the world.

The part of the book probably most relevant to politics is NNT’s rant against “experts”. Most of his scorn is directed against economists whose speculation is hardly ever accurate, but it could just as easily be an attack on political pundits. “Expert” pundits are almost always wrong. Consider predictions for things like election timing, leadership races, or even politicians and elections (Prime Minister Bernard Lord anyone?). Rather than pick on the print media to illustrate this point, I’ll take a shot at myself (since I’m not paid to make predictions, I really don’t mind being wrong). In 2005, I got to musing about the next Liberal leadership race and concluded that the four main contenders for the crown were John Manley, Frank McKenna, Martin Cauchon, and Scott Brison. Three of those guys didn’t run and the other probably wishes he hadn’t. I mentioned the 1993 election before, but the rise of the ADQ, or any of the three government changes Alberta has enjoyed in its history could all be considered political black swans. I think the moral is that politics is rooted in extremistan and that making predictions, especially long term predictions, is an exercise in futility. It also means that things we could never even conceive of today are certainly possible. Maybe that’s why lifelong Dippers or Alberta Liberals stay around in politics.

Another beef of NNTs that is especially applicable to politics is his complaint against historians. After taking an undergrad degree in history, I have always felt there was a certain over eagerness to explain everything and make every historical event seem predictable. I think every person alive has had to do a “causes of World War 1” essay at some point in their lives. Maybe the rise of Hitler or the fall of communism were predictable, but when hardly anyone was predicting them you have to wonder if it wasn’t just a fluke that historians are trying to find a logical reason for post hoc. In politics, it seems that pundits (who were 100% wrong beforehand) will pontificate after the fact about how obvious event X should have been to everyone beforehand. Winners are deemed to be political geniuses who ran flawless campaigns and losers are deemed to be inept fools. I can guarantee you that had Martin fluked into a majority government in 2004, pundits would be praising the Mad as Hell tour as a stroke of genius. And by "pundits", I don’t mean just John Duffy.

NNT also talks about a lot of problems with statistics that I’m 100% in agreement with. I won’t get into a lengthy lecture on this since I doubt many of my regular readers are bell curve enthousiasts, but the cavalier disregard for outliers and need to normalize distributions has always stood out to me as a problem in statistics. Not so much among people who know what they’re talking about but more so among amateurs. NNT's passionate hate of the bell curve borders on the obsessive and that's probably a little unfair since it does serve it's purpose for normal data from mediocristan - you only run into problems when people toss the underlying assumptions out the door and misuse it.

As for the book itself, it’s certainly not an academic text by any means which makes it a fun read. NNT’s sarcasm and jokes (mostly about frenchmen) are sprinkled throughout the book and he can be scathingly critical of those he dislikes. Good for him – it makes it a more enjoyable read. NNT comes across like an arrogant know it all at times but his arguments are generally sound so it’s hard to get too worked up about it.

So if you’re looking for a book that will make you think a bit and explain society – something kind of like Tipping Point – I would certainly suggest you pick up a copy. If you’re using statistics for predicative purposes in a field other than statistics, I would insist you pick up a copy.

A copy of The Black Swan was provided free from Random House, for review

Guest Blogging: John Scully

I'm putting the finishing touches on this year's "Politicians in Cowboy Hats" stampede fashion review...expect a post shortly on that. Until then, I turn things over to John Scully for a guest blog post on Canada's role in the world.

And just like all talk show hosts plug their guest's latest movies, I'll engage in a bit of that now. You can check out John's blog here. And, of course, his book "Am I Dead Yet" is available for sale at fine bookstores across this country. It makes for a great summer read!

TALK ABOUT A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE!

The world exhaled last week when one BBC reporter, Alan Johnston, was released. Thugs had held him hostage in Gaza for 144 days. But few anywhere were paying attention to another extraordinary event in Bogotá, Colombia. Defiant protesters demanded the release of 3000 hostages being held by guerrillas. Three thousand. Some for as long as 11 years.
When Edmonton Liberal David Kilgour was Secretary for State for Latin America and Africa, he made four trips to Colombia. Kilgour was deeply concerned not only about the drug wars in Colombia, but also the human misery they created. He took active steps through various NGOs to try alleviate a desperate situation. Sadly, he failed.

An estimated four million peasants have been now forced off their land. Half a million have fled the country. And no wonder. The murder rate at about 20, 000 a year, is described as the second highest in the world (South Africa is apparently number one). Favourite targets are the usual do-gooders: reporters, union leaders, teachers, the Popular Women’s Organisation, missionaries and anyone who tries to step in the way of the mighty drug gangs. One of them, the AUC, the United Self Defence Force of Colombia, is allegedly a front for U.S.-financed government para-militaries who reportedly dispatch enemies of right wing U.S. supplicant, President Alvaro Uribe.

The demonstration last week seemed, if there can be such a thing, a final straw. It was a rare show of national unity for the 44 million people of Colombia. They have seen civil war and drug cartels dominate them for 50 years. The catalyst this time was the execution of eleven politicians held hostage for five years by several gangs and the FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces For Colombia.

The BBC interpreted the protest as a chance by the Uribe government to channel the outrage at the killings into support for Uribe’s alleged stand against FARC. But Uribe and Colombians are dreaming if they think FARC, the AUC and other gangs holding the hostages will be influenced by banners and slogans. But unlike Alan Johnson, the question is: will these hostages ever be seen again, alive and free?

Earlier this year Uribe himself was accused of being involved in massacres in his home province of Antioquia. Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore took the unproven allegations so seriously he cancelled a meeting with Uribe about the environment.

There have been improvements in Colombia under Uribe who has received $3 billion worth of help from the U.S. but human rights groups say that, as usual, the rich continue to benefit and the poor continue to suffer.

And that brings us back to David Kilgour.He said in Bogotá in 1999:” Prospects for a solution to the civil conflict remain uncertain. The Colombian government (has) begun a formal peace dialogue with the major guerrilla groups. Canada has expressed a willingness to assist in the peacemaking efforts if all parties agree.”

That was eight years ago. Perhaps someone should ask Stephen Harper how willing Canada is now to assist in the peacemaking. Oh, wait a minute, aren’t we busy somewhere else?

Bart's Books: French Kiss

French Kiss: Stephen Harper's Blind Date With Quebec
by Chantal Herbert

I’ll be honest. The only reason I decided to review Chantal Hebert’s latest book was because I’m hoping to get a few google hits for “french kiss”. I’ve always found Hebert’s view of federal politics and federalism frustrating but she certainly knows Quebec politics inside out and is undisputedly Canada’s preeminent Quebec columnist for people living outside of Quebec. With a Quebec election behind us and the possibility of both separatist parties delving into leadership races, now seems like a good time for an in depth look at Quebec politics and some speculation about the future of the politics in that province.

Unfortunately, French Kiss doesn’t really provide either. It’s yet another book on the dynamics of the Martin versus Harper era, with a focus on Quebec. Less than half the book deals with Quebec politics which is unfortunate since Hebert is clearly more in her element when writing about that topic than about, say, Alberta politics, where there is no real deep analysis on her part. There’s also no profound speculation about the future beyond “Harper will fail...or he won’t”, which is probably fair enough since no one really knows how Harper’s courting of Quebec will end. For Hebert, it’s hard to predict how the Harper positives of offering more autonomy for Quebec will be balanced against policy issues like Afghanistan and the environment where he’s completely off base from Quebecers. She does get off a good line at the end of the book though, by cautioning that Harper should “not read too much into a first date kiss”.

Hebert should have taken a page from her subject’s focused priorities approach, because she jumps around from topic to topic in Paul Martin style, leaving the reader dizzy at times. For example, one chapter starts off talking about the benefits of a Liberal-NDP merger, moves into electoral reform, and winds up lamenting the lack of women in politics. Another chapter starts off talking about the legacy of the Charter in Quebec, moves on to BC politics, and ends with an analysis of the equalization formula. As a result, French Kiss reads like the transcript of how you might imagine a talk with Chantal Hebert over beers at a pub might sound, rather than a book tightly focused around a central thesis about Quebec politics.

Much like Chantal often does, I’m probably sounding fairly negative so far, so I will say that Hebert does provide enjoyable reading when she sticks to Quebec. Her opinion that the presence of the Bloc Quebecois has hurt the separatist cause was especially fascinating. In her view, by showing separatists working with Canada and by bringing Quebec issues to the fore, it undermined the argument that Canada doesn’t work. Hebert also believes that the Clarity Act debate turned into a “family affair” with Dion and Duceppe duking it out in Ottawa, whereas without the BQ, it might have been seen as Ottawa imposing its will on Quebec.

Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with Hebert’s opinion that the only way to power in Canada is through “open federalism” and decentralization. Throughout the book, she is constantly urging the Liberals and NDP to copy the Harper/Mulroney federalism blueprint. In addition to disagreeing with this in principle, I’m not sure it would be a political boon for either party to shift their view in that direction. Her chapter long “Ode to Meech” where Hebert describes the utopian society Canada would be had the ill-fated accord passed had me rolling my eyes a few times.

Still, even though I disagreed with many of her points, throughout the book Hebert defends her arguments well and writes in a very readable style, full of colourful analogies. So while it probably won’t be my favourite political book of 2007, it does have its moments.

Recommendation: Pick it up as a bargain book or borrow it from a friend.


Other Reviews
Bound by Gravity
Olaf
A BCer in Toronto
Political Staples interview

A copy of French Kiss was provided free from Random House, for review

Bart's Books - The Way it Works

I just finished up Eddie Goldenberg’s behind the scenes look at life in the PMO – The Way it Works. For those not wanting to read the full review, I’d sum it up by saying it’s the kind of book a die hard political hack would enjoy but, unlike something like Paul Wells’ book, it’d be a pretty dull read for anyone with only a passing interest in politics.

Let’s start with what’s not covered in the book. There’s not much on Eddie Goldenberg’s personal life since, unlike Bill Clinton, he hasn’t earned the right to tack on 200 pages about his childhood. There are only three words on the Kyoto Accord, so you won’t get any more insight on Goldenberg’s latest machinations on the subject. There’s next to nothing on election campaigns as the book really does try to limit it’s scope to life in the PMO. And, at that, it is successful at giving a behind the scenes glimpse of the way it works. Goldenberg describes the decision making process for several major (and minor) decisions, giving a recap of the balancing between policy and politics which go into all of them. He’s quite blunt about having to consider the political ramifications about all decisions, just as he’s up front that certain appointments are nothing more than patronage. He also makes several references to the pork barreling desires of MPs with what he calls PIMBY (Please in my backyard).

Because of admissions like this, the book deserves to be taken a bit more seriously than, say, Sheila Copps' book. Goldenberg does admit that Chretien wasn't infallible, calling the GST reversal “a big mistake that would affect his credibility as PM”. At the same time, the understandable bias is still there and the book certainly paints JC in the most favourable light possible. Also receiving heaps of praise is Stephane Dion, which is a little surprising given that the book was released in the midst of a leadership race where Eddie was helping out Bob Rae. Dion is described as being like a son to Chretien and was one of the few ministers invited out to Harrington Lake with Jean.

Receiving quite a bit less praise than Dion was, of course, Paul Martin. Goldenberg doesn’t go out of his way to smear Martin at all, but he does get a few subtle digs in here and there (“very, very important”). He also claims that Martin opposed Meech purely for political reasons and that Tim Murphy once told him that “Paul’s people didn’t think it would be good for [Martin] to be associated publicly with anything in Trudeau’s memory”. Despite these less than flattering anecdotes, Goldenberg goes to great lengths to praise Martin’s work as Finance Minister and the good working relationship Paul had with his boss. And when describing things like the Martin/Tobin broadband battle during the 2002 budget, you really do get the sense that he isn’t taking sides.

As I said in the beginning, there are a few behind the scenes stories which political junkies will appreciate. Goldenberg recaps several meetings with George Bush, and tells of how Lucien Bouchard spent his entire meeting with Bill Clinton asking advice about private schools rather than talking about Quebec separatism. There are also a few surprises here and there in the book, such as the revelation that Ralph Klein was one of the federal government’s biggest allies during the 2000 Health negotiations. And I know I got a kick out of guessing who the cryptically described politicians in Goldenberg’s less than flattering stories are (for example, the “Toronto MP and future Paul Martin Cabinet Minister”).

Probably the most interesting thing about the book is to see what Goldenberg considers to be Chretien’s greatest achievements. And given the amount of ink he spills on different subjects, it’s clear to me that he sees the innovation agenda, the Clarity Act, the economic recovery, and, maybe above all else, the decision to stay out of the Iraq war, as the most significant accomplishments of Chretien’s decade in power.