Harper's Fundamental Weakness

[August1991]

Several years ago, I realized that if the PCs and Reform ever managed to form the obviously named Conservative Party, then I would take interest once again in Canadian politics.

Six months ago, Stephen Harper was just a name to me.

But once I realized that Paul Martin would not get elected PM, and Stronach was a candidate for the Conservative leadership, I took interest in Harper, wanting to know whether he'd be acceptable, IMV, as a PM.

I saw him in person in debate. I verified the various "dangerous" quotes in context, and came away with a generally favourable opinion. This man desperately needs someone to write his biography, I thought. Central Canadians do not know him and simply want to feel comfortable with him. Eventually, I thought, they will.

But I must admit that watching these past TV debates and his statements overall, Harper has a grave weakness now apparent to me. Canada's Leftists never got it, Martin never got it and it will be for another Liberal leader to pick up on it.

Like Bourassa and Mackenzie King, Harper has no clear opinion of Canada except shrewd expediency. At most, he has a laudable desire to reduce (or at least hold the line on) the activities of government.

Harper is not a dangerous, fundamentalist, social conservative ideologue. He's a bland accountant. Davis in Ontario was successful that way. King and Bourassa too.

Harper is an obviously intelligent man. How does he understand Canada? We don't know and we'll probably never know because he'll never really tell us.

[Slavik44]

well Then the fact that harper has gotten away with it speaks numbers about the incompetency of the other party leaders.

[playfullfellow]

Like Bourassa and Mackenzie King, Harper has no clear opinion of Canada except shrewd expediency. At most, he has a laudable desire to reduce (or at least hold the line on) the activities of government.

I wonder if any of us have a clear opinion of Canada anymore? I know how I would like to see Canada but that view does not always mesh with other peoples opinions.

[Goldie]

A weakness?

I don't view it that way, simply because in the past we have had alot of charisma (Diefenbaker) but not a very good manager. Another, we have had a cerebral and charismatic that overstepped the bounds of good government.

I think the time is good for an introvert cerebral to manage the affairs of Canada. I also think it is good for english Canada to have faith in a leader that is more like themselves to re-engage in politics.

I'm sure Mr. Harper views Canada as most Canadians do, a great wealth not fully realized, a country that is distinquishable from the U.S yet bound by history and geography and commerce.

[Argus]

Like Bourassa and Mackenzie King, Harper has no clear opinion of Canada except shrewd expediency.  At most, he has a laudable desire to reduce (or at least hold the line on) the activities of government.

Harper is not a dangerous, fundamentalist, social conservative ideologue.  He's a bland accountant.  Davis in Ontario was successful that way.  King and Bourassa too.

Harper is an obviously intelligent man.  How does he understand Canada?  We don't know and we'll probably never know because he'll never really tell us.

Consider the circumstances. Harper is new to eastern Canadians, as is his party, but he and they knew full well there would be a massive effort to smear him and them as dangerous ideologues. Their clear strategy was to stick to centre right fiscial issues and be as dull and unthreatening as possible.

When you trot out your "vision" of Canada you alienate all those who disagree with you. This is especially true when you're relatively unknown, and when your enemies in the media and the other parties are trying to scare people about you.

I think if he gets into office, presuming he does well, he won't need to keep himself as bland and quiet because people will know him and, presumably respect him. It will be far harder to portray him as a dangerous zealot after he's been in office even a year.