Case File 100218: Jean C. and Paul M.
"Dat man, 'e 'ate me!"
"Now, that simply is not true."
Jean C. is the Prime Minister of a middle power nation with close ties to the United States and weakening ties to the United Kingdom. He has won three consecutive majorities and continues to enjoy broad popular support. Jean C. shows the classic symptoms of a man long used to power. On the one hand, he is arrogant in determining and enforcing his own agenda. On the other hand, he is paranoid about what he perceives to be challenges to his authority.
Paul M., all of four years Jean C.'s junior, displays a classic passive-aggressive personality. On the one hand, he does not appear willing to challenge Jean C.'s power directly. On the other hand, his friends do seem determined to undermine Jean C.'s authority, something they would be unlikely to be bold enough to do without his blessing. Typical behaviour for a second in command who felt his ambitions were being thwarted.
I had been treating them separately when both had reached an impasse that seemed to warrant a joint session. I held up a hand to stop Paul M., telling him he would get his turn to respond shortly, and asked Jean C. to continue.
"'E want to take my job! 'E 'as been secretly campaigning against me for mont's!"
I asked Jean C. why he felt this.
"Because dat is exactly what I do to Turner!"
I asked Paul M. if this was true. He shrugged and told me it wasn't. I asked him if he was being completely honest. He said he was, but he wouldn't look me in the eye, and his tone of voice suggested evasion.
"Ask 'im about resigning from Finance!" Jean C. commanded.
Paul M. was a popular Finance Minister until Jean C. made it mandatory for all members of his Cabinet to disclose who contributed money to their election campaigns. Rather than supply Jean C. with this information, Paul M. resigned from Cabinet. This had been a serious source of tension within the relationship. I asked Paul M. to tell his side of the story. He bristled defensively.
"My financial backers are none of his business!"
"Exactement! 'E is 'iding 'is business connections!"
I cautioned Jean C. that it was now Paul M.'s turn to speak.
"He put me in a no-win position. Stay and reveal my campaign donors, who, I have no doubt, would have received pressure to disown me, or leave and be labeled a traitor!" I asked Paul M. if he shouldn't accept some responsibility for creating the situation by making campaign-like speeches. He shrugged. "People ask me to talk. I haven't changed what I talk about in order to capitalize on the current situation, if that's what you're getting at. Why don't you ask him why he all of a sudden needed information about who contributed to our campaigns?"
"Da public 'as a right to know."
"After three elections, don't you think it's a little late to be concerned about campaign donors? Don't you think the timing is a little suspicious?"
"Da people demand it - I just do what dey tell me dey want. Dis is wrong?"
I reminded the two men that I wasn't supposed to take sides. I suggested a time out. It was clear that Jean C. and Paul M. had their own versions of events and that they weren't listening to what the other had to say. When I pointed this out, Jean C. snorted derisively and Paul M. expressed interest in what I was saying while indicating through his alert and aggressive body posture that he wasn't actually listening to it. After a couple of minutes, I asked them if there was any common ground on which they could agree to meet.
"I believe in da wisdom and da generosity of da Canadian people."
"What federal politician doesn't? I believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility."
"Feh! In dis day and age, 'oo doesn't believe in dat?"
"New Democrats."
Jean C. and Paul M. laughed at this. Ordinarily, I don't encourage patients to laugh at those who aren't in the room, but in this case the relief from the tension was worth the minor transgression. This was the first session that had ended on a positive note in a month.
Stripped of its political trappings, it is clear that this is a classic Oedipal conflict. What is, perhaps, less obvious is how this conflict can be channeled into something more constructive so that it doesn't destroy the Liberal Party.
