Charest, Clark, And Carney’s (Seemingly?) Centrist Cabinet

How Progressives Should Respond

CBC and Radio-Canada reported on Monday that Jean Charest was offered a Cabinet post by Mark Carney,- but of news that is interesting both for what it is and for what it suggests about the broader direction of the government. Combined with some very good Star reporting, we have a sense of the direction the government wants to go to - and that’s not towards me. And my respect? Tread carefully.

To the extent that Charest, who declined the cabinet position, makes sense, it is in the act of offering him a job. The best thing for the Liberal Party is asking and having it be declined. We get the bonus points with moderates for asking and we don’t actually have to put Jean Charest in our fucking cabinet, thank God. I have a lot of affection for Charest as a son of Montrealers who loves the city and am grateful I don’t need a passport to travel to it, but he voted to restrict a woman’s right to choose in 1990, ran an incredibly corrupt government in Quebec, and is a Conservative. I’m not a Conservative, so I don’t want a Conservative leadership candidate in the cabinet. Sue me.

I’d also like to get one more thing on the table - all of the good will towards Carney I am about to articulate goes away if Nate Erskine-Smith is fired. The left of the party is being asked to accept quite a lot of moderation, from Marco Mendicino as temporary Chief of Staff to an offer to Jean Charest, and if you want us to go along to get along we at least get one, and that’s Nate. I have no reason to think he’ll be cut from Cabinet and would in fact be actively shocked if he was even under consideration for demotion or firing but it’s worth being clear - the left of the party and Liberal-NDP switchers need to be clear that any centrist pivot is not going to completely abandon us. I trust they’ll make the right decisions.

And if they do, I’m very excited to meet them halfway, which is by saying if the rumours are true and Christy Clark is getting a gig, we all need to shut up and take it.

..

There are plenty of reasons not to like Christy Clark if you’re a Liberal, and I was plenty mean about her when she was a candidate for the leadership for a reason. But it is exceedingly clear that the party needs to occupy a broad centre and show that it is different from the Trudeau era party. Christy Clark is quite helpful at doing that.

She has form as a Federal Liberal (unlike Charest), has had Liberal memberships before (unlike Charest), and other than when she was signed up to vote for Charest she’s never been a signed up Conservative. It’s a concession on ideological grounds, sure, but it’s a valuable symbol.

The harsh reality is the Liberal Party went too far and burned a lot of good will in the country for a more maximalist social progressivism. We got it wrong, and while we will never admit that publicly, a government that is more focused on economics and basic competence instead of going down flights of fancies around how America was sexist for not electing Kamala Harris or whatever is appealing to a lot of people who are at least open to voting Liberal.

I’m not sold that Clark really moves the needle in specific, but that’s kind of the point - Clark is far more valuable as a vague symbol than as a retail politician herself. In the same way that the value of Charest was in the ask, that Carney wants a right of centre business Liberal in the team is a signal to the suburbs that this is more serious.

But at the end of the day this is about beating Pierre Poilievre. The team that Carney has assembled has earned the benefit of the doubt. I have doubted this team many times, and they deserve said benefit now. If they see a virtue in making these decisions I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s real. Frankly, getting 86% of the vote and raising as much money as they’ve raised is an incredible accomplishment in such a short time.

Clearly they think the old PC tradition can be brought into the Liberal fold. If they’re right, and the left of the party hold, you’re not just talking about a win but even potentially a decisive majority. If a broader tent is how we do that then fine. Pierre Poilievre would be a fucking disaster so I will take a half a loaf to get through the election without him winning and fight Carney like hell afterwards to ensure this is still a liberal government.

The honest truth that is so often ignored by purists who want easy answers to hard questions is that it’s not just about what a party promises to do, but who a party listens to about the masses of issues it can’t predict or plan for. A Carney government will be better on the platform than Poilievre, sure, but if in 6 months or 9 there’s some unexpected surprise, I’d much rather be led by someone whose team will listen to Nate Erskine-Smith and progressive voices outside the government (even potentially this site) than someone who will be pushed right by Rebel and Juno and the worst of the right wing Premiers.

Carney is also not exactly right wing himself, and his decision to endorse Catherine McKenney in 2022 speaks volumes about who he is at his core. We need someone who could see that vision and not be sucked in by the managed decline that Sutcliffe represented. It’s a telling sign that we have someone who will listen to us.

The reason I wanted to get rid of Justin Trudeau was because the Liberal Party is worth saving. If, after I got on my high horse as repeatedly as I did about how the good of the party had to come first, above that of people’s vain attempts to keep or consolidate power, then I have to hold myself and my ideological peers to that same standard. We got what we wanted, a chance to win the election. We cannot throw that away just because we dislike Christy Fucking Clark.

Get on board, get Carney elected, and then let’s fight to make sure his government is as good as can be. But save the internal problems until after the election.