SNOBELEN: Carney's cabinet picks reveal a blind spot and weakness

Prime Minister Mark Carney made at least one good choice when he crafted his new cabinet. He left Nathaniel Erskine-Smith out of it.

Three decades ago, I was a newly minted member of the Ontario Executive Council (a.k.a. cabinet) when a staff member suggested I might want to be cautious if I intended to stay in cabinet. I replied that I didn’t run to be a cabinet minister.

I found the reaction to that comment curious. Political folks assumed I meant that I had my sights set on a position loftier than cabinet. This assumes a level of ambition I was sorely lacking.

I was trying, awkwardly, to express my disinterest in a political career. I ran for office to make a difference, but I assumed it was up to me to find a way to make that difference. If it were a cabinet position, fine. If I were assigned to cleaning the latrines, it would have also been fine.

My job, as I saw it, was to take any opportunity to advance an agenda I believed to be important before fading into obscurity. In other words, it wasn’t about me.

Erskine-Smith sees the world and his proper role in it differently. He believes he has a right to be in cabinet, apparently ahead of his less-deserving colleagues.

Left out of Carney’s cabinet, Erskine-Smith publicly expressed that he felt “disrespected.” He said he ran for office to “make an even bigger difference around the cabinet table.”

That might be good thinking in Erskine-Smith’s riding (Beaches-East York), but from out here on the farm, it smacks of hubris.

Cabinet appointments reflect an assessment of needs and merit through the lens of the leader. U.S. President Donald Trump’s cabinet reflects his priorities. His secretaries have a uniform, unwavering personal capacity for kissing the president’s posterior. They all look like they would fit comfortably on a Fox News set. Henry Kissinger would not fit in with this crowd.

Carney’s task in crafting his cabinet was to assemble the leadership required to inspire and motivate Canadians in a time of change. Great leaders understand their weaknesses and blind spots. They surround themselves with people who challenge their world view and preconceived notions.

American historian Doris Kearns Goodwin explored this theme in her remarkable 2005 book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Her work illuminates the remarkable leadership skills and courage required to assemble an imperfect and sometimes disloyal team and focus their efforts on a daring objective.

Carney has a political blind spot. He embodies a uniquely Canadian form of the governing class that journalist John Ibbitson coined the ‘Laurentian Elite’.  He is firmly entrenched in — and a proud member of — a global elite far away from machine shops, farms and factories.

For Carney, this is both a strength and a weakness. Canadians elected this government largely on the notion that Carney understood and was respected by the global ruling class. However, his ability to connect with Canadians requires a profound respect for people who think Cambridge is a town west of Guelph. His senior cabinet picks are not well-suited to countering Carney’s perceived elite bias. Anita Anand, Steven Guilbeault, Chrystia Freeland and Melanie Joly share a remarkable capacity for speaking down to Canadians.

Carney is going to need help with this. People who occupy his chair have demonstrated a declining interest in the wisdom of common folks.