Stephen Harper has long been a lightning rod for controversy in Canada. At the same time, the PM's influential role in changing the ideological underpinnings of Canadian conservatism has gone virtually unnoticed.
There has been an astonishing amount of obtuse commentary on Harper, with pundits blithely throwing around terms such as "elected dictator," "authoritarian," "demagogue," and "control freak." He has been compared to a North Korean communist tyrant and an Italian fascist dictator. And as someone who has known Harper since 1996 (we obviously haven't spoken much in recent years), I've become fed up with these ridiculous assessments of his political ideas and leadership skills. Trust me: I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly with this PM, and most of what you hear and read just ain't true.
So, I'm going to devote the next two columns to a topic that could be best described as part history, part "inside baseball," and part personal analysis. My hope is some of the perceptions Canadians have of this PM can be modified - and that Harper's legacy in Canadian political history will finally be fully understood.
Last November, I suggested the term "Harpertism" to describe a new political phenomenon in which Harper "strategically became the figurehead for Canadian conservatism, adjusted it, modified it, and re-branded it as a moderate - and heavily watered down - version of fiscal conservatism." For the record, my term has absolutely nothing to do with Lawrence Martin's Harperland, a breezy and uninformative book that I tore apart in a review for the C2C Journal in November 2010. Harperland attempts to depict the PM in a negative fashion, as someone who wants to increase executive power at all costs. In my view, Harpertism is neither bad nor good; it just is what it is. But you have to acknowledge its brilliance: It developed under the radar, caught most people off-guard, and led Conservatives back to the promised political land.
During the extensive period of political wilderness for Canada's Right (1993-2006) it was clear that Canadian conservatism wasn't clicking with the electorate, and needed to be reformed and revitalized in a hurry. The best way to do that was to clean house, gut the ideology, and give conservatism a long-needed modern facelift.
Harper gradually emerged as the best person to get this job done. He was intelligent and articulate. He had a passion for politics, history and economics. He had lived in Ontario and Alberta. He had pretty decent French, even 15 years ago. He admired modern conservative heroes, including Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. He was also seen as someone who could build political bridges rather than destroy them.
It took a while for Harper to truly appreciate his role as the Right's white knight. After many heated political battles with Reform leader Preston Manning, he joined the National Citizens Coalition in 1997. He occasionally poked his head out of hiding, supporting Tom Long's Canadian Alliance leadership bid in 2000 and speaking with the federal PCs' small yet influential Blue Committee. He built up a network of friends and supporters (including myself) who had a similar vision about Canadian conservatism. But he waited for the right opportunity - and political conditions - to return to federal politics.
There has been an astonishing amount of obtuse commentary on Harper, with pundits blithely throwing around terms such as "elected dictator," "authoritarian," "demagogue," and "control freak." He has been compared to a North Korean communist tyrant and an Italian fascist dictator. And as someone who has known Harper since 1996 (we obviously haven't spoken much in recent years), I've become fed up with these ridiculous assessments of his political ideas and leadership skills. Trust me: I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly with this PM, and most of what you hear and read just ain't true.
So, I'm going to devote the next two columns to a topic that could be best described as part history, part "inside baseball," and part personal analysis. My hope is some of the perceptions Canadians have of this PM can be modified - and that Harper's legacy in Canadian political history will finally be fully understood.
Last November, I suggested the term "Harpertism" to describe a new political phenomenon in which Harper "strategically became the figurehead for Canadian conservatism, adjusted it, modified it, and re-branded it as a moderate - and heavily watered down - version of fiscal conservatism." For the record, my term has absolutely nothing to do with Lawrence Martin's Harperland, a breezy and uninformative book that I tore apart in a review for the C2C Journal in November 2010. Harperland attempts to depict the PM in a negative fashion, as someone who wants to increase executive power at all costs. In my view, Harpertism is neither bad nor good; it just is what it is. But you have to acknowledge its brilliance: It developed under the radar, caught most people off-guard, and led Conservatives back to the promised political land.
During the extensive period of political wilderness for Canada's Right (1993-2006) it was clear that Canadian conservatism wasn't clicking with the electorate, and needed to be reformed and revitalized in a hurry. The best way to do that was to clean house, gut the ideology, and give conservatism a long-needed modern facelift.
Harper gradually emerged as the best person to get this job done. He was intelligent and articulate. He had a passion for politics, history and economics. He had lived in Ontario and Alberta. He had pretty decent French, even 15 years ago. He admired modern conservative heroes, including Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. He was also seen as someone who could build political bridges rather than destroy them.
It took a while for Harper to truly appreciate his role as the Right's white knight. After many heated political battles with Reform leader Preston Manning, he joined the National Citizens Coalition in 1997. He occasionally poked his head out of hiding, supporting Tom Long's Canadian Alliance leadership bid in 2000 and speaking with the federal PCs' small yet influential Blue Committee. He built up a network of friends and supporters (including myself) who had a similar vision about Canadian conservatism. But he waited for the right opportunity - and political conditions - to return to federal politics.
In 2002, Harper finally returned to public life and won the Canadian Alliance leadership. He helped merge the Alliance with Peter MacKay's PCs in 2003, and won the leadership of the Conservative party. New alliances were built with old political rivals, including Mulroney, Hugh Segal and Marjory Le-Breton. Political dead weight, including former prime minister Joe Clark, either left or was tossed aside.
The first stages of Harpertism began to take shape just after the 2004 federal election. The Conservatives shed a number of ideological skins to become more professional and less "scary." The Alliance/PC commitment to fiscal conservatism was maintained in the early going, but social conservatism was watered down or kept in check. Reformstyle populism was frowned upon, meaning political candidates had to toe the line and stop spouting off about everything under the sun.
Most importantly, right-leaning Blue Toryism became the dominant political ideology. Left-leaning Red Toryism was, at long last, put to pasture, even though there were and are Red Tories willing to work with this new party and they were welcomed.
The next step was to sell Harpertism to the Canadian public. This led to a seismic ideological shift in Canadian conservatism that most observers, including yours truly, didn't see coming. The political repercussions changed the conservative movement, the party, and our political landscape - possibly for good.
The first stages of Harpertism began to take shape just after the 2004 federal election. The Conservatives shed a number of ideological skins to become more professional and less "scary." The Alliance/PC commitment to fiscal conservatism was maintained in the early going, but social conservatism was watered down or kept in check. Reformstyle populism was frowned upon, meaning political candidates had to toe the line and stop spouting off about everything under the sun.
Most importantly, right-leaning Blue Toryism became the dominant political ideology. Left-leaning Red Toryism was, at long last, put to pasture, even though there were and are Red Tories willing to work with this new party and they were welcomed.
The next step was to sell Harpertism to the Canadian public. This led to a seismic ideological shift in Canadian conservatism that most observers, including yours truly, didn't see coming. The political repercussions changed the conservative movement, the party, and our political landscape - possibly for good.
Original Article
Source: Ottawa Citizen
Author: Michael Taube
No comments:
Post a Comment