Monday, June 13, 2005

There's always a 'but'

Stephen Harper's accomplishments are set out in today's National Post editorial.

Mr. Harper certainly deserves a lot of credit for his accomplishments . . . In short order after the merger, he organized and won a leadership race that served largely to unite the two rival clans. Then he launched immediately into an election campaign that he nearly won. Since last year's national ballot, Mr. Harper has out-fundraised the Liberals, built a stronger national party structure, orchestrated a successful policy conference that filed off the roughest edges of his party's platform, worked hard at finding new local candidates and committed himself to building a base in Quebec -- a task he almost succeeded at earlier this spring when, for a time, the Conservatives appeared set to surpass the Liberals' support in that province.

And as usual, there is always a 'but':

Still, for all he has accomplished, we cannot say with confidence that Mr. Harper is the man to take the Conservatives to power. With all the Liberals' troubles, the Conservatives should be far ahead of the ruling party in the polls. They are not, and have not been, even at the height of the Gomery commission's revelations . . .

(W)e imagine the trouble lies with how the message is being delivered. Mr. Harper is a glum, moody figure who has shown little enthusiasm for the rituals of mass-media politics and for the simple glad-handing expected of party chiefs. And instead of hiring communications staff who make up for these weaknesses, he has hired glum, clannish people who reinforce them.

In a contest of personalities, perhaps Harper wouldn't win -- but this 'angry', 'dour' nonsense is getting out of hand. The Post also says:

We have had our differences with the Tory boss, to be sure -- most notably, when we wondered in print last fall whether Canada still had a "conservative" party, given Mr. Harper's endorsement of Liberal deals with the provinces on health care and transfer payments, and the party's failure to come out boldly in support of ballistic missile defence. (He grumpily shot back that Canada had a conservative party -- "what it lacks is a national conservative newspaper.")

Why the adjective 'grumpily'? Why an adjective at all? Why the characterization of Harper as a 'glum, moody figure'?

Even if these assessments of his character are true, certainly the Post isn't advocating a slick glad-handing, smooth-talker as leader because he would give more soothing sound-bites?

Personality should not be at issue when assessing the quality of a leader. Character should. Personality allows one to engage socially, it is what one says. Character is what defines a person, and it is what one does.

For all the media accounts of Harper's lack of engaging personality, he has drawn together two divergent parties, and kept them balanced. He has been pragmatic in his choice of battles despite the media rage against him. He has overthrown tradition to show support for his MPs (by voting for the budget which included the Atlantic Accord -- Opposition parties traditionally vote against the budget, regardless of its content.) He has shown the ability to compromise with people, without compromising his principles -- the same-sex issue comes to mind with free votes being allowed on issues of conscience. He has shown loyalty and patience in the Grewal affair -- and has been reviled for it --- when Paul Martin's own actions, and his loyalty to Murphy and Dosanjh remain largely unquestioned.

It was the media who created the perception of Paul Martin, saviour of Canada's finances. It was the media who created an environment where Martin's ascention to the PMO was greeted with the awe of a coronation. We've since learned that this saviour has feet of clay -- but the media is loathe to chip away at this fragile shell of leader.

When did smiling while lying, and smug grins at having put one over on the public, become more of an asset for a leader than refusing to parse words when dealing with systemic deceit?

Why are we looking for showmanship over leadership? Jack Layton has toned down his rhetoric of late, becoming sedate, soft-talking -- does anyone believe that Jack has had an inherant reformation? It's all window-dressing. The new public persona doesn't change the underlying message of the man -- nor does it make it more palatable.


Canada is fast becoming a nation of show rather than substance -- of platitude rather than principle. The media persists in this wrong-headed search for a leader with 'charisma' and 'personality' by playing up what it perceives to be Harper's flaws.

Were the situation reversed and Martin in opposition and if a Conservative government were playing games with the democratic process, undermining the integrity of parliament, threating and accusing his MPs, and making a mockery of House procedures -- I wonder how sunny his disposition would be -- and I wonder if the media would consider it an issue worthy of so much ink and editorial space.

7 comments:

Paul said...

I've heard pundits and media people slag various politicians for lack of substance... all show and no go. Yet, when you've got an honest, intelligent, moderate, common sense type man, who has the loyality of his MP's... he's not good enough. I stopped listening to the media a long long time ago, because they just don't make sense.

Unknown said...

I think Steven Harper, and only he, had the gumption and the intelligence to put together the alternative to the Martin Bulldozer against the Traditional Legal Definition of Marriage. I disagree strongly with him, as a homo, that 2women intimate unions can be rendered = to 2men intimate unions. There is a difference, and the law should not be formulated in a state of denial. There should be separate hearings and studies for these two different kinds if they are to be officially recognized, and the rights and responsiblities of each when their unions are legal-recognized (not "civil unions," these are unions of two people excluding all others, with an intention of permanence). It's only a question of of stipulating rights and responsiblities, and these may/should differ, but the torpor of careful thawt regarding what would be wrawt, even under Steven, prevents real law-making. Nevertheless, Steven Harpers's move is brilliant because it forthrightly dares to preserve the uniqueness and difference of 1woman1man intimate unions from the other two kinds, and to give the former a privileged status for the purposes of the State in proferring recognition to all 3 kinds, while preserving the Traditional Legal Definiition of Marriage. In all 3, the principle of the 1-to-1 rule is / must be explicit, or will have cases arguing on the same nonsensical basis in the courts that polygamous unions are appropriate. Keep that wall alive! Harper's Marriage legislation will do so. - Owlb

Walsh Writes said...

But he won't take orders from us... the omnipotent media.. we run this country.. how dare he do that!!

Gasp he is actually listening to the public!! the horrors!!

Boo hoo hoo,,,, Baaawwwwaaaahhhhh.

W.L. Mackenzie Redux said...

Nice tribute by the Post...done with crocadile tears dripping on the script...but isn't it always customary to read the eulogy at the funeral of the fallen hero that the eulogist betrayed ( hove very Romanesque)...later in the article the Post is slicing up Harper in typical petty media eltist style ( probably because he doubts the post is a conservative paper and said so in its editorial pages).

The post is petty, self serving and dangerously out of line with CPC membership in this article. Harper is the only leader who can hold the CPC together and stands a chance of toppling the criminal Martin regime and smoothing over Quebec separation...without him the west walks out on the party and federalism.

Now what's the Post's real agend?

Les Mackenzie said...

Here is a great example of elitist slicing and dicing.

Linda said...

"Personality should not be at issue when assessing the quality of a leader. Character should."

I don't think most of the MSM would recognize character if they tripped over it. So much of what calls itself 'news' has simply morphed into showbiz, where all that matters is flash -- not substance. Stephen Harper has substance -- and virtue:

"To point out the importance of circumspection in your conduct, it may be proper to observe that a good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." George Washington (1732-1799; 1st U. S. President) [In a letter to his nephew in 1790 - emphasis added]

Candace said...

linda - on the media not recognizing "character" should they trip over it.

How many have repeated Lapierre's "coward" remark about Duceppe?

The man chose to honor a previous commitment, i.e. to lead the BQ in the next election.

He chose to walk away from his dream of leading Quebec in a referendum (and yes, according to the MSM anyway, he may not have been a shoo-in but who TF are they trying to kid?) because he recognized that by leaving the BQ now, on the eve (whether tomorrow or in 3-6 months) of an election without an obvious replacement, he would be hurting not only the BQ, but the province he is fighting for.

That's called honor. And character. And the MSM continue to smear him.

What absolute jerks. This is SOOOOO gonna backfire on the Libs in Quebec. I know. You know WHY I know? Because I'm in Alberta, and I know how PO'ed everyone is about the slurs on Harper. Even when they AGREE. (Because he's family, and we can insult our own family members with impunity, but will not put up with it from outsiders.)

Big mistake.