This was a disappointing read. Perhaps it is a good example of "proximity to a historical person or event does not mean you are qualified to write about it-yes, even if you are an acclaimed journalist who actually knew the man intimately".
The vast majority of this book is a dry replay of the history of the CCF/NDP. Far, far (I really cannot emphasize this enough) too much time was spent recounting the minutiae of various letters and meetings and parliament sessions, at the expense of exploring the philosophy of Douglas. I didn't pick this book up to be bored out of my toque by the stale and tedious internal dynamics of a political party. I picked this up to learn more about the person who gave us universal healthcare, the person who is still universally loved by every Canadian regardless of whatever other affiliations they may have. (Consider the fact that every Canadian lovingly call him "Tommy" rather than the formal "Thomas" or "Mr Douglas". I have never heard a single person in Canada call him "Thomas").
The biography *does* address his background and family life to some degree, and the first 1/4 of it was enjoyable; however, it fell short of being eye-opening or offering an interesting take on its subject. There was superficial (at best) discussion regarding the intersections of his Socialism and Baptist faith, which is tragic. His "Christian Socialism" is arguably what made him who he is, and yet very little time or words are spent on this.
I will praise the time that was spent examining the fact that Douglas, despite being a Baptist, was pro-eugenics. McLeod did a great job breaking this down. He gave adequate weight and explanation to the fact that it was common for people to be pro-eugenics in this time period, and that eugenics and birth control/family planning have some interesting intersections. Ultimately he does expose the fact that eugenics is fundamentally not compatible with his Christianity (or socialism) and that yes, our beloved Tommy was flawed and held inconsistent beliefs.
At times, it failed to use obvious evidence or stories to the benefit of the narrative. For example, a well-known anecdote is that Tommy Douglas was inspired to fight for universal healthcare after he contracted osteomyelitis as a child, and would have possibly died if a doctor had not pitied his family and helped them for free. This, we are told, had a profound impact on Tommy and contributed to him being a socialist. One would think you would include that story on the beginning of the biography. It was not there. In fact, that anecdote does not appear until Chapter 20- and even then, it is treated as a minor footnote and not given the critical analysis it deserves.
Let's talk about Chapter 20. Chapter 20 is the chapter on Medicare. This is when he brought healthcare to the province of Saskatchewan and it was the prototype for universal healthcare in Canada. This was Tommy's greatest achievement. But the take on it was totally underwhelming. There was plenty of information on the internal dynamics of Medicare, but nothing about how ordinary people would have felt about it or how it impacted them. I would have liked to have seen some information about how the health of people improved (or perhaps didn't) under Medicare. Did certain disease or chronic illnesses decrease in frequency, for example? Apparently, that is not as important as reading part of a limp memo.