The Globe and Mail

When Brian Mulroney left office in 1993, his approval rating was right around 10 per cent - the lowest in the history of polling in Canada. To put that number in context, George W. Bush, the most reviled President in U.S. history, never saw his approval rating dip below 22 per cent and the final polls as he left office had his approval rating around 33 per cent - or roughly three times as popular as Mulroney.
 
Think about that - when W. Bush left office he was three times as popular as Mulroney was when he left. Let that sink in. Bush was Obama-like compared to Mulroney.
 
It is thus with some perplexion that I follow the silliness going on about Brian Mulroney. Take Lawrence Martin's column today about how Stephen Harper had better throw Mulroney a giant party (with cupcakes and loot bags) or he might as well give up.
 
Martin repeats what is quickly becoming a truism amongst the chatteratis: "Mr. Mulroney, whose record as prime minister is gaining increasing respect..." On policy, sure. I guess. Free trade, the GST, his crusade against apartheid - we can all recite the list. Good for him! We avoid talking about how Mulroney caused more damage to national unity than any separatist leader ever could have dreamed of causing and how unemployment was roughly 50 per cent higher under his watch than today because that's such ancient history. Close your left eye and you only see the positive things he did out of your right one.
 
But there is, of course, more to a prime minister's record than a shopping list of policy achievements.
 
Mulroney wasn't only reviled because of his policy decisions - not even close. The Oliphant commission is, in part, reminding people why Mulroney was a third as popular as Bush.
 
Not to be cynical, but I have a funny feeling that Stephen Harper has a pretty good idea (read: polling numbers) of exactly how unpopular Mulroney remains both with his base and with the general population.
 
It is obviously better to be united as a party than divided, but when Lawrence Martin pulls out the Chrétien-Martin feud to show how much damage Harper is causing himself by distancing himself from Mulroney, he is forgetting two pretty simple facts: (1) Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were popular figures with the public (and thus had audiences that went well beyond party operatives). Brian Mulroney is not popular with the general public at all (I know the popular assumption is that Quebec is an exception to the rest of Canada, maybe. Until I see some numbers that back that up, I go back to Bush being three times as popular than the guy nationally); and (2) despite the divisions in the Liberal Party caused by the feud, the party won four elections under Chretien and then Martin, as the feuds persisted (ie - the feuds made interesting copy and did alienate lots of party members, but in terms of actual election results, didn't actually hurt the party as much as people think).
 
So while I think Harper is acting like a bit of a jerk towards Mulroney (and is doing a terrible job issues managing it), I'm not sure that alienating Brian Mulroney is actually going to do anything more than remind people that Stephen Harper is a jerk - just in case they didn't already know that.