JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: DEBATES FOR UPCOMING CANADIAN ELECTION - DOUBTS ABOUT TRUDEAU'S PURPORTED ABILITY AS A DEBATER - LIMITS OF VALUE TO VOTERS OF ANY HIGHLY-STRUCTURED DEBATES - A LITTLE-NOTICED PHENOMENON IN WESTERN ELECTIONS ABOUT THOSE MORE SKILLED IN RUNNING FOR OFFICE THAN RUNNING THE OFFICE - CANADA'S UNAPPETIZING MENU CHOICE OF COLD LEFTOVERS SERVED FOR THIS ELECTION - WESTERN "DEMOCRACIES" OFTEN OFFER VOTERS LITTLE REAL CHOICE

John Chuckman


COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS



“Trudeau snubs Munk, Maclean's/Citytv debates but will attend commission debates

“Liberal leader willing to do TVA debate if parties can agree on date”



There is a reference here to Trudeau as a "formidable debater."

I don't know because I didn't see the debates for the last election.

But if there is any truth in the claim, it would tend to show only how little that is useful may be revealed in debates.

In politics, it is a genuine and repeated phenomenon to have people who know how to run for office and then prove incapable of actually running the office.

We've seen that happen a number of times, both in Canada and the United States.

So, if it is accurate that Trudeau is a "formidable debater," it only gives us another example of that phenomenon because he has absolutely proved himself to be anything but a formidable national leader. He has been weak and indecisive, even slightly ridiculous at times.

But I tend to doubt the debating claim. Trudeau has always been decidedly unimpressive in the House of Commons. Apart from a relatively poor speaking voice, his command of facts and figures has never been impressive. And he is given to flaccid and unimpressive generalizations.

The NDP's Thomas Mulcair was ferociously effective in the House of Commons, attacking Harper in his later days, making him squirm the way a great criminal lawyer is able to do with witnesses or the accused at a trial. Trudeau's voice was absolutely feeble by comparison. He was simply unimpressive.

If Mulcair did not win those election debates, it is likely only because he held back, thinking that attacking what was then a new boyish face in politics – and one bearing the almost sacred name, Trudeau - might look bad.

If so, it was a serious error.

Unfortunately, in the upcoming election Canadians have a very bleak choice. All three major parties are offering quite unappetizing, cold leftovers for a big social occasion.

There is no good alternative to the proven-inept and subservient Justin Trudeau. Such, not infrequently is the unhappy reality of Western "democracies."

Just look at the last national election in the United States. What a choice. Two figures from Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors.

And just look at the bleak prospects the Democrats have lined up for the next one - now that they've effectively dropped their only interesting candidate, Tulsi Gabbard - to oppose America's first certifiably lunatic President.

____________________

Response to a comment about Trudeau refusing to participate in events not influenced by biased media:

I'm not trying to defend Trudeau. I certainly do not support, or even like, him.

But as to your comment about his not being willing to appear in debates "not manipulated by a biased media," what can I say?

Maclean's magazine? You are kidding? I've read it many times in a waiting room. Its bias is palpable.

The Munk organization functions much like an American think tank. Its output and the events it hosts are quite biased and show little genuine independent thinking. Mostly, they are not even interesting.