To the Editor:
When Lester Pearson died in 1972, the public grieving was moderate. Notwithstanding a career that involved a Nobel Peace Prize and five years as prime minister, sober dignity was the order of the day.
Almost 28 years later, Pearson's immediate successor, Pierre Trudeau, died. During approximately 15 years in office, he too was consequential, albeit in a more controversial way. Although unpopular when he finally left office, Trudeau's 2000 death produced an outpouring of grief and an orgy of media coverage. The scale and apparent intensity was vastly in excess of what had transpired for Pearson.
In part, that difference was a function of social changes over the intervening 28 years. For one thing, there's the Diana effect, whereby the death of famous people becomes an opportunity for participation in group emotionalism, however vicarious. For another, there's the proliferation of media to pump up the intensity level.
Still, by any reasonable measure, Trudeau was a highly influential figure. And his passing was a bona fide historical milestone.
Comparatively speaking, the reaction to Jack Layton's death seems disproportionate. To be sure, Jack was a popular, feisty politician who led his party to an unexpected second-place finish. And he was associated with a number of causes, many of which Canadians give at least lip-service to.
In addition, the circumstances of Jack's illness and death, and the grace and courage with which he handled it, were genuinely admirable. Even those who found his political agenda distasteful, or his political persona a tad smug, could raise a sincere glass to his fortitude.
But his impact on Canada doesn't remotely rank with that of either Trudeau or Pearson. Or if it does, it does so in a way that won't bring comfort to his celebrants. For Jack's significant legacy is his contribution to the ascendancy of Stephen Harper.
To begin with, it was Jack's withdrawal of support from Paul Martin's government that precipitated the election which brought Harper to power in 2006. Then the 2008 coalition overreach, in which Jack was an intimate player, rescued a suddenly vulnerable Harper and provided the necessary breathing space for his political recovery.
It's reasonable to ask whether Jack should have been given a state funeral. Certainly, precedent would argue against it.
Traditionally, the honour has gone to those who have been prime minister or governor general, and those who are active federal cabinet ministers at the time of death. Jack met none of these criteria.
Still, the decision is ultimately the prime minister's prerogative. One may reasonably wonder why he made the choice he did. Perhaps, as with many decisions in life, the motivations were multiple.
By all accounts, he had a genuine respect and admiration for Jack. And leaders of the opposition don't die every day, particularly in circumstances as touching as Jack's.
Perhaps too there was an element of getting ahead of the curve, in effect, recognizing that a gracious gesture, which costs nothing, allows a potential squall to harmlessly blow itself out.
With craftiness of that order, Jack's legacy may be with us for a long time to come.
Pat Murphy, Troy Media Corporation.
