The Just Society: Trudeau's Leadership Campaign

Trudeau’s belief in “The Just Society” was clearly evident from his leadership campaign. However it would quickly emerge that Trudeau, and by extension his cabinet, had misjudged the public mood. While “The Just Society” might have been achievable, at its latest, at the end of the 1950s, by the end of the 1960s, it was impossible. The problem was, during both Trudeau’s leadership campaign and the 1968 federal electoral campaign, Trudeau misconstrued that it was “The Just Society,” rather than his own personal popularity with the electorate, that enabled the Liberal Party to win a majority government in 1968. As a result, Trudeau came into office in 1968 with the mistaken belief that he had approval from the Canadian public to enact his “Just

Society.”
Unfortunately, even Canada’s electoral system was partly responsible for giving Trudeau this mistaken impression. While Trudeau did win a majority government in 1968, it was far from the so-called the “Trudeaumania” that many historians suggest. Trudeau, and the Liberals did win over forty percent of the popular vote, but this was not reflective of the number of seats.

Due to Canada’s electoral system favouring representation by population, and the bulk of Canada’s population being in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec, meant that Trudeau’s electoral platform only really had to appeal the populations living in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec; and it did. However, as Trudeau was about to discover to his cost, that appealing to Ontario and Quebec did not translate into universal appeal for “The Just Society.” While Trudeau also had several seats in British Columbia, his support across the Prairies was minute at best, where the contests were mostly between the Progressive-Conservatives and the New Democratic Party and left the Liberals largely shut out of the Prairie Provinces. Nevertheless, in the Liberal

Cabinet the ministers took little notice of the lack of appeal across the Prairies and instead assumed that they had mandate to implement “The Just Society.” This was due to the fact that Trudeau had the belief that his opinion and viewpoint on any important matter was, correct and so surrounded himself with ministers who thought the same way he did. As a result, Trudeau and his cabinet fell victim to the groupthink philosophy and failed to anticipate that the Canadian public would not view: “The Just Society” in the same way that Trudeau and his Cabinet Minsters did. The program’s failure, due to it being Trudeau’s lynchpin when it came to both domestic and foreign policy, was a reflection on just how much Canadian society had changed since the Second World War.
In contrast to contemporary society, the main government focus was not on international relations and international events, but on domestic policy. This was due to the fact that since the Second World War’s conclusion, Canadian governments, of all political stripes, were focused on ensuring that the economic conditions that caused the Great Depression would not be able to re-manifest themselves. To that end, Trudeau’s Just Society was a continuation of these trends and the continued belief in the Keynesian economic theory. In combination with Keynesianism there was an unstated understanding between the government and the Canadian population as a whole. The Canadian population was to implicitly trust the federal government and in return the Canadian government would ensure that the Canadian population would not experience the same conditions they did during the Great Depression. However the unfortunate result that none of the pre-existing societal and economic barriers were addressed and, indeed in some cases these barriers increased; particularly for women.
However, by the late 1960s it was becoming increasingly apparent this contract between the Canadian population and the federal government was breaking down; with various groups becoming increasing frustrated with their limited means for economic and social advancement. In addition the age of social protest movements, and the antiwar movement from Vietnam War, had crossed the Canadian-American border and was impacting Canadian public life. Yet it was in this volatile political and social mood that Trudeau chose to outline his government’s agenda: which was expressed in the 1968 throne speech. The throne speech was not a problem in and of itself. Indeed to call many of the promises in the speech optimistic would be a gross understatement. The Throne Speech openly called for eradication of poverty in Canada, as well the removal of all economic and social barriers for Canadian citizens. However the problem lay in the language in which it was couched. Like all throne speeches it was directed towards the Caucasian males whom had dominated Canadian since Confederation, which caused great angst among those who were historically disadvantaged as there was no specific mention of them in the speech. In fact the speech made the situation worse due to it using the words: “bilingualism” and “biculturalism” which indicated to minorities that the Liberal government would continue to ignore the minority groups. The situation was made worse due to the fact that, in the age before modern and instant media, all these minority groups knew was what the government, and a select few political commentators, publically stated: which lead to problems later on.
The situation was quite different when it came to the economy.

In keeping with the Keynesian economic philosophy, despite the continued focus on social programs, the spending was still justified on economic grounds. Already in 1968 it is clear that the government was concerned about inflation and stagnating economic growth. While the term: “Stagflation” was not yet coined; the Liberal government was desperately trying to prevent this unforeseen circumstance and was trying to recapture the economic growth that was the hallmark for the previous two decades. In stark contrast to the current neo-liberal philosophy, the Liberal approach to ensure future economic growth was to implement economic programs at the national level and have these programs government-directed and government-controlled. The importance that the national economy held in the Liberals’ political eye in 1968 cannot be overstated. The Minister of Finance, Edgar J. Benson’s, first budget speech in 1968 was incredibly detailed, looking at everything from life insurance companies to short and long-term economic outlooks and proposed resolutions for the House. However within this speech contains the serious problem that would cause havoc for the Liberal government, and indeed all of Canada, during the Liberals first term: a mounting deficit. The problem was that for the Liberals, in the modern era of the welfare state, there was no precedent for dealing with this fiscal

imbalance.
The only instances where serious deficits had occurred was during the Great Depression and the minor ones experienced after the Second World War’s conclusion, were made up quickly through rapid economic growth, and subsequent consumer spending. While the Keynesian economic philosophy argued that the solution for this was personal tax increases to make up for the government shortfall: this was an option for the Liberal government. According to Finance Minister Benson’s calculations the tax increases needed to make up for the government shortfall would cause damage to the Canadian economy. However, this also put the Liberal government at odds with the objectives outlined in: “The Great Society.” The social programs that Trudeau envisioned, on top of the strongly established welfare state, were dependent on large increases in government spending and with the government already facing a deficit situation, it meant that many of the programs both Trudeau, and provincial governments, wanted were now unaffordable.
In the various provinces however, there was still hope among the provincial governments, and their respective general populations, remained hopeful that the Liberal government’s policies would be realised. In addition, at least initially, the Liberal government actively tried to encourage the general population to take an active part in democracy. However, the hope was that the general population would use the active participation in democracy to praise the Liberal government and their policies. Nevertheless, while the Liberals had a majority government, the public’s expectations for the Liberals were incredibly high; to the extent that it was virtually impossible to meet the public’s expectations. In addition, in stark contrast to the cynicism that manifests itself when contemporary political figures make campaign promises, the general public had no reason to believe that the Liberals would not follow through with their campaign promises.