Sunday, November 28, 2004
Why Pierre Trudeau should win the CBC's Greatest Canadian contest - Part I
First of all, some background reading.
Finished? Good. With that in mind, we can dispense with discussion on the fallacy of even running such a contest and get straight to discussion on why I'm right and those of you who disagree with me are, to put things as delicately as possible, not. Before we get there, though, I'd like to make a point to those of you who do not believe in public broadcasting: find a copy of tonight's greatest Canadian showdown, and cue to the part where Rex Murphy and Daniel Igali are yelling at each other over the relative merits of Pearson and Trudeau. Then tell me that Mothercorp doesn't enrich this country. Beyond that, I would like to express my intense desire for Murphy to enter Canadian politics no matter where he stands on the so-called issues, if only to make televised debates better.
On the question itself, let's start by narrowing the field a little. Cherry? A mildly entertaining and reasonably informed commentator on hockey. Neither the best coach we've produced, the best hockey analyst we've produced, nor the best entertainer we've produced. Whatever category you wish to slot him into, he's exceeded by many others. The contrarian in me would like to back him, after so many others have dismissed him, but sometimes the majority's got it right. Exit, Don.
Wayne Gretzky is *probably* the greatest hockey player of all time (some make the case for Mario, speculating as to what he could have accomplished if not for his early retirement and his cancer, but it is not a contest of potential in which we are engaged), but I am adopting here a definition of "greatness" that requires service unto others. Gretzky entertained people, but nowhere near as effectively aa a number of other, less talented, hockey players. Apart from that, my values do not place hockey on anywhere near the same plane of importance as public policy. If yours do, consider a vote for Gretzky. The Great One's not great enough for me.
Alexander Graham Bell is easy to dismiss on the basis that he is not, by any reasonable definition of the word, a Canadian. That feels like a technicality, though, so I'd like to be firmer: Alexander Graham Bell would not belong on this list even if he was born and raised in Moose Jaw. While he came up with a groundbreaking invention whose importance has only been amplified over the years, an inventor's greatness must not be measured only by the practical applications of his invention but also by the scientific progress required to create the invention, and one this there were dozens more impressive than Bell.
Lester Pearson was a good man - likely the best ("best" being the superlative of "good", rather than of "great") to ever hold the office of Canadian Prime Minister. And his government accomplished a great deal, especially given that he was never able to capture a majority (though his inability to do so ought perhaps to be counted against him). He might even - and this is rather high praise, praise that I'm not sure I'd even apply to Trudeau - qualify as a competent PM. But I see nothing that made him truly Great. He brokered some deals with the Premiers (indeed, brokerage was always his forte), he came up with a meaningless flag, and expanded the role of the federal government in the provision of social programs, but he had no great accomplishment, as the other politicians on the list all did, to make him deserve a spot on the list. As for his Nobel Peace Prize, it pains me to say it but he was one of the least deserving recipients in the award's history. Pearson was a good man who excelled at bland conciliation, but if he was the Greatest Canadian, Canada's in trouble.
That leaves the six who I consider to be genuinely worthy of consideration: Fred Banting, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, John A. MacDonald, David Suzuki, and Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau clearly has the most eloquent advocate of the six (seriously, Rex: run!), so it seems a little unfair for me to add my own supreme eloquence to his corner, and yet I shall do so. . . in my next post.
|
First of all, some background reading.
Finished? Good. With that in mind, we can dispense with discussion on the fallacy of even running such a contest and get straight to discussion on why I'm right and those of you who disagree with me are, to put things as delicately as possible, not. Before we get there, though, I'd like to make a point to those of you who do not believe in public broadcasting: find a copy of tonight's greatest Canadian showdown, and cue to the part where Rex Murphy and Daniel Igali are yelling at each other over the relative merits of Pearson and Trudeau. Then tell me that Mothercorp doesn't enrich this country. Beyond that, I would like to express my intense desire for Murphy to enter Canadian politics no matter where he stands on the so-called issues, if only to make televised debates better.
On the question itself, let's start by narrowing the field a little. Cherry? A mildly entertaining and reasonably informed commentator on hockey. Neither the best coach we've produced, the best hockey analyst we've produced, nor the best entertainer we've produced. Whatever category you wish to slot him into, he's exceeded by many others. The contrarian in me would like to back him, after so many others have dismissed him, but sometimes the majority's got it right. Exit, Don.
Wayne Gretzky is *probably* the greatest hockey player of all time (some make the case for Mario, speculating as to what he could have accomplished if not for his early retirement and his cancer, but it is not a contest of potential in which we are engaged), but I am adopting here a definition of "greatness" that requires service unto others. Gretzky entertained people, but nowhere near as effectively aa a number of other, less talented, hockey players. Apart from that, my values do not place hockey on anywhere near the same plane of importance as public policy. If yours do, consider a vote for Gretzky. The Great One's not great enough for me.
Alexander Graham Bell is easy to dismiss on the basis that he is not, by any reasonable definition of the word, a Canadian. That feels like a technicality, though, so I'd like to be firmer: Alexander Graham Bell would not belong on this list even if he was born and raised in Moose Jaw. While he came up with a groundbreaking invention whose importance has only been amplified over the years, an inventor's greatness must not be measured only by the practical applications of his invention but also by the scientific progress required to create the invention, and one this there were dozens more impressive than Bell.
Lester Pearson was a good man - likely the best ("best" being the superlative of "good", rather than of "great") to ever hold the office of Canadian Prime Minister. And his government accomplished a great deal, especially given that he was never able to capture a majority (though his inability to do so ought perhaps to be counted against him). He might even - and this is rather high praise, praise that I'm not sure I'd even apply to Trudeau - qualify as a competent PM. But I see nothing that made him truly Great. He brokered some deals with the Premiers (indeed, brokerage was always his forte), he came up with a meaningless flag, and expanded the role of the federal government in the provision of social programs, but he had no great accomplishment, as the other politicians on the list all did, to make him deserve a spot on the list. As for his Nobel Peace Prize, it pains me to say it but he was one of the least deserving recipients in the award's history. Pearson was a good man who excelled at bland conciliation, but if he was the Greatest Canadian, Canada's in trouble.
That leaves the six who I consider to be genuinely worthy of consideration: Fred Banting, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, John A. MacDonald, David Suzuki, and Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau clearly has the most eloquent advocate of the six (seriously, Rex: run!), so it seems a little unfair for me to add my own supreme eloquence to his corner, and yet I shall do so. . . in my next post.
