‘Intoxicated by the power’: What it’s like to lead Canada as prime minister

Historian J.D.M. Stewart discusses his new book The Prime Ministers: Canada’s Leaders and the Nation They Shaped. He details the personalities of the politicians (flaws and all) that led this country-from Macdonald to Carney. The history teacher of three decades also explains how little young Canadians know about their country’s history and whether the cancellation of historical figures has finally come to an end. You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify. Program Summary This is an automated summary. Please check against delivery. Concerns were raised about the state of historical knowledge in Canada, particularly regarding the country’s prime ministers. The conversation was prompted by an alarming incident in which a room of high-school Model United Nations participants could not identify Lester B. Pearson, a Nobel laureate and former prime minister. This episode underscored a broader worry: that a declining appreciation for the nation’s leaders, compounded by a recent tendency to critically re-evaluate historical figures, risks severing Canadians from their past. The dialogue explored the nature of political leadership, the lessons of history, and the current state of how Canada remembers its founders. The role of a prime minister, it was suggested, demands a unique set of qualities. One historical description characterized the job as requiring “the hide of a rhinoceros, the morals of St. Francis, the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the leadership of Napoleon, the magnetism of a beetle and the subtlety of Machiavelli.” While not all prime ministers have possessed such a formidable combination, they have shared a common thread: a profound passion for Canada and a capacity for hard work. The unifying force among them has been a belief in the country and a desire to improve it, even if their methods and visions differed dramatically. The personal motivations of these leaders vary. Some, like Brian Mulroney and Mackenzie King, were notably thin-skinned and craved public adoration, with the latter meticulously recording perceived slights in his diary. Justin Trudeau was also noted as someone who thrives on public acclaim. In contrast, figures such as Louis St. Laurent and Stephen Harper appeared less concerned with popular affection. A healthy ego, it was concluded, is almost a prerequisite for the job, given the constant public scrutiny and the need to seek electoral approval. Governing styles also differ markedly. Some prime ministers are “briefing book” leaders—deeply immersed in policy details. Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney, and Pierre Trudeau were cited as examples, alongside the notoriously hard-working R.B. Bennett. Others, like Jean Chrétien, were seen as more focused on setting broad priorities and delegating to strong cabinet ministers—a practice that has seemingly waned in recent years. The discussion noted that the greatest commodity in the prime minister’s office is time, and how a leader chooses to allocate it profoundly shapes their government. On the subject of political scandals, the Pacific Scandal of 1873, which brought down John A. Macdonald’s government over allegations of corruption linked to the railway, was identified as perhaps the most significant in the nation’s history. Yet Macdonald’s subsequent return to power illustrated another key theme: the importance of political skill and a compelling vision for the country. A historical perspective is a common trait among prime ministers. They are often students of their predecessors, drawing lessons from those who came before. Stephen Harper studied the governments of John Diefenbaker and Jean Chrétien; Mackenzie King idolized Wilfrid Laurier. This reverence sometimes takes physical form, with leaders keeping mementos—Laurier’s pen or horseshoe tie-pin, or busts of Macdonald—in their offices as tangible links to the past. The conversation turned to the Liberals’ historical dominance, having governed for 87 of the last 129 years. This was attributed to the party’s pragmatism and its ability to “go to where the voters are.” The lesson for conservatives, it was suggested, is that a degree of ideological flexibility—being an “ideological acrobat”—is necessary to win power in Canada, as demonstrated by Brian Mulroney’s embrace of free trade after initially opposing it. The intoxicating nature of power was another theme. No prime minister has ever left office entirely voluntarily; they are either defeated, pushed out by their party, or die in office. The ability to effect change with a single phone call or decision is a powerful draw. As one former prime minister noted, more can be accomplished in five minutes in that role than in six months as a private citizen. The discussion defended the “great man” (and woman) theory of history against the backdrop of broader social forces. While acknowledging the importance of systemic factors, it was argued that studying leadership remains crucial. These individuals made decisions that shaped the nation, for better or worse, and to ignore them is to ignore a fundamental part of the country’s story. The current state of history education was lamented, with many provinces offering social studies rather than dedicated history classes, leaving little room for deep dives into political leadership. Finally, the pendulum of public discourse was addressed. The intense, often angry debates about historical figures that characterized the 2020-21 period, leading to statue removals and fierce criticism, appear to have subsided. The conversation suggested that society may now be entering a phase of more balanced, less emotional reflection, where it is possible to acknowledge both the achievements and the flaws of historical figures. However, the ability to engage in good-faith, nuanced debate on these topics was noted as a continuing challenge. The dialogue concluded with a call for a Prime Minister’s Institute—a dedicated centre for the study of political leadership—to help foster a deeper and more sustained understanding of the forces and individuals that have built Canada.