On the one hand, a big, skillfully written, and handsomely published trade-market book on a consequential moment in 20th century Canadian politics might seem another blow to the Canadian-history-is-dead doomsayers. On the other, the still-dead crowd might point out that this lively, readable political biography by an award-winning, bestselling national journalist did not get the buzz and attention it might have been expected to generate. I haven't been reading much about it, and never saw much sign of it on the bestseller lists – not that they are such a great neighbourhood for a writer to be found in these days. And lack of attention is one of the doomsayers' key plaints. The Duel was featured on the Witness to Yesterday podcast last month: Ibbitson interviewed by Greg Marchildon)
And the book itself? “One purpose of this book has been to dispel the false narrative that the two Pearson governments accomplished much while the three Diefenbaker governments accomplished little,” Ibbitson declares. I’m not sure that purpose is fulfilled. Often enough, the case rests on Diefenbaker having initiated a study of some question that Pearson later turned into policy. Ibbitson wants to give Diefenbaker shared credit for medicare, for instance, on the grounds that while Pearson’s government implemented medicare, Dief made it possible by naming Emmett Hall to undertake the royal commission report that recommended it.
Ibbitson reports, “Diefenbaker had cannily appointed his friend Emmett Hall … knowing full well where the judge’s sympathies lay.” I’ve always heard Hall’s sympathies initially lay elsewhere, and that his endorsement of medicare shocked the conventional wisdom. Here as elsewhere, a little more evidence might help Ibbitson’s contrarian claims for Diefenbaker.
With my interest in our dreadful party leadership selection processes in Canada, I was particularly interested in anything new on how Dief came to win the Conservative Party leadership in 1956, and how he came to lose it in 1967. I recall interviewing John Courtney, the Saskatchewan political scientist, who described how Diefenbaker, long unpopular within his own party, spent his time as an MP travelling the country signing up new party members, so that when the leadership race began, no one else had any chance of amassing the lead in delegates Dief already had.
And the book itself? “One purpose of this book has been to dispel the false narrative that the two Pearson governments accomplished much while the three Diefenbaker governments accomplished little,” Ibbitson declares. I’m not sure that purpose is fulfilled. Often enough, the case rests on Diefenbaker having initiated a study of some question that Pearson later turned into policy. Ibbitson wants to give Diefenbaker shared credit for medicare, for instance, on the grounds that while Pearson’s government implemented medicare, Dief made it possible by naming Emmett Hall to undertake the royal commission report that recommended it.
Ibbitson reports, “Diefenbaker had cannily appointed his friend Emmett Hall … knowing full well where the judge’s sympathies lay.” I’ve always heard Hall’s sympathies initially lay elsewhere, and that his endorsement of medicare shocked the conventional wisdom. Here as elsewhere, a little more evidence might help Ibbitson’s contrarian claims for Diefenbaker.
With my interest in our dreadful party leadership selection processes in Canada, I was particularly interested in anything new on how Dief came to win the Conservative Party leadership in 1956, and how he came to lose it in 1967. I recall interviewing John Courtney, the Saskatchewan political scientist, who described how Diefenbaker, long unpopular within his own party, spent his time as an MP travelling the country signing up new party members, so that when the leadership race began, no one else had any chance of amassing the lead in delegates Dief already had.
This was a profound innovation: Dief was the first Canadian politician to seize party leadership -- against the established party powers -- by taking control of the membership lists. It's the way everyone has sought to claim leadership ever since, right down to the million-dollar vote-buying orgies of today’s political parties. Of all this, Ibbitson says simply, “He was the people’s choice.” Who have we heard that about recently?
Dief’s departure was equally consequential. He never really accepted that a party convention could remove him from leadership (though it did, in the end, with much consequent difficulty), but equally he did not accept the party caucus could remove him either. He did much to establish the understanding that loyalty runs in one direction only, and that retirement from political leadership in Canada must be left solely to the inclination of the leader himself (usually on election night). Ibbitson does not enlighten us on that one, either, though the question could surely be relevant to the story of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s looming choices.
The Duel is well-written, a nicely structured dual biography going back and forth between two well-described colourful and significant protagonists. Didn’t quite break new ground for me, I guess, but it deserves readers.
Dief’s departure was equally consequential. He never really accepted that a party convention could remove him from leadership (though it did, in the end, with much consequent difficulty), but equally he did not accept the party caucus could remove him either. He did much to establish the understanding that loyalty runs in one direction only, and that retirement from political leadership in Canada must be left solely to the inclination of the leader himself (usually on election night). Ibbitson does not enlighten us on that one, either, though the question could surely be relevant to the story of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s looming choices.
The Duel is well-written, a nicely structured dual biography going back and forth between two well-described colourful and significant protagonists. Didn’t quite break new ground for me, I guess, but it deserves readers.
Comment From Helen Webberley (Melbourne, Australia)
The post needs a title. [Fixed, thanks.] I did not do any history courses after the WW1 and its aftermath, and I certainly know precious little about the 1950s.
And nothing whatsoever about Diefenbaker! But I think historians today
can learn a great deal about earlier crisis eras.
Comment From Jared Milne (Alberta)
I caught your review of John Ibbitson's book about Diefenbaker and Pearson. ... I do think that Diefenbaker is one of our most underrated Prime Ministers.
My own ranking of our PMs puts Diefenbaker much higher on the list than most rankings do, because besides the most obvious positives of giving First Nations people the full voting rights that were 93 years overdue and nixing his predecessors' awful racist immigration quotas, he also did a lot of good bread-and-butter things like complete the Trans-Canada Highway, started the path to medicare by creating federal hospital insurance (which is a better support for Diefenbaker's claiming credit for a part in universal healthcare than anyone he appointed), and made Prairie Canadians feel like we really had a seat at the table with his agricultural reform and the National Oil Program.
Diefenbaker might not be one of the all-time greats, but I often don't think he gets enough credit for the things he did right.
