it's not the content of the piece that is important here, that's really not even being considered, it's the process of going through the photoshoot. if there was a glossy photoshoot in the new york times, the same reaction would take hold; if the vogue piece was just writing, or even an interview, nobody would get upset, either.

and, the critics (i'm not really one of them....i'm in the "this is entirely irrelevant" category) have somewhat of a point. here's the thing: you do this once, you ruffle a few feathers but get away with it. you do it repeatedly, and it becomes a liability because it makes you look like a celebrity.

it's a good way to demonstrate the differences between how canadians see their politicians, in comparison to americans and brits. trudeau's name didn't help him in the general (although it was everything at the convention). in fact, it almost destroyed him. we react very badly to the idea of a kennedy family, or an upper class "ruling" us. we'd prefer to see our prime minister in donated clothes than in expensive ones.

it's a reflection of our past. canada has never seen itself as a rich country. and, in the broader sense of things, the truth is that it never really has been. we're a country of lumberjacks and refugees. this is alienating because it reflects a foreign culture that we don't understand and, frankly, don't like very much. even those that transcend this view of ourselves still broadly *like* it, because it's quaint.

if this goes away soon, it will be forgotten. but, as i pointed out with the brooch issue, this is something that they want to avoid, not something they want to perpetuate.

it's nothing of any importance. no intelligent person will have their upcoming votes affected by it. but, it is a massive pr error, in canada.

and, frankly, a smart pr team would have seen it as an obvious pr error before it happened.

the liberals had the best platform. that's why they won. let's write that out on the board 500 times, please, so we all understand it.

if you look at the archetypal "canadian icon" it's something like neil young. left-leaning, for sure. but, earthy. "real".

i've said this before: the right idea here is not the aristocratic pomp of a jfk. it's the populism of an rfk.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/10/justin-trudeau-sophie-gregoire-vogue-critics_n_8771490.html

Hannah Hanrahan
This is a well reasoned viewpoint, obviously not coming from partisanship. It's true for me. I was over the roof when Trudeau won the election and this has put an end to my elation. Vogue is fine. It's the analysis of this particular image that produces the problems. It's not an image I feel connected to as a Canadain. It's an image of a colonialized Canadian whose been convinced to allow themselves to be appropriated by a culture that is actually quite oppressive and that we don't really like . It promotes values we don't identify with, and in fact a lot of canadians have made their way as comdic cirtics of those values. We're comedians of all this pompous American riche, expensive fashion, sexualized celebrity elitism, not minions of it. LOL

jessica amber murray
i agree, but it's not entirely what i'm getting at. that's something else i was thinking about. canada was run by the silent generation all the way until 2006. if harper was a boomer (he was born in 1959, and doesn't strike me as a boomer...), he's probably the only boomer pm we'll ever have. rather, we seem to have skipped from the silent generation to gen x - while the americans skipped from the gis to the boomers and will probably skip gen x. and, canada may very well skip the millenials. we skipped the boomers, the gis and the lost. it would fit the pattern...

we may end up with gen x in charge for the next 40 years, just like we had the silent generation in charge for 40 years. this is all very crude and everything, but i think it's reflective of broad values. look at the liberals after 1965 and look at the stereotypes of the silent generation and tell me that it doesn't make sense. meanwhile, the americans completely skipped over them.

if this kind of commercialism is a defining boomer characteristic, it makes sense that gen x has tended to rail against it. and, as a country, our collective decisions over the next few decades may end up clustered around these generational stereotypes - as they ended up clustered around the silent generation stereotypes over the last several decades, generally pushing back against the boomer status quo of tax cuts and hyperindividualism. we could be on track to really double down on this, while the millenials carry on as boomer v 2.0 - boomers, but worse. we'd likely be wise to avoid them, as we were wise to avoid the boomers.

that may be the difference in the countries. we're staggered a half a generation. canada is silent--->x---->z; america is gi--->boomers--->millenials.

crude. sure. perhaps useful, though.

what i was getting at was more of a distance thing.

those pictures of steve-o in his cowboy garb are likely to elicit laughter for many years. but, there's a correctness of strategy in this in that it makes him look human. i'm still not sure about whether he really was, but he convinced enough people.

why was chretien invincible, and why did martin's ship run out of steam so fast? because chretien was a man of the people, and martin was seen as an upper class business person. the elder trudeau was moderately wealthy, but he made a strong attempt to seem down to earth. it didn't always work.

standing up on your first day of office and doing a photoshoot like this? it suggests some broad cluelessness.

but, as i stated previously, i could hardly actually care.

i will judge him solely on his legislation.

also, he wants to avoid jerry maguire memes.

"show me the bills!"