Wednesday, September 27, 2006
This post has nothing to do with Gerard Kennedy
It's early to judge, but from where I'm sitting Stephen Harper looks like the best Prime Minister since Pierre Trudeau.
I'll just let that observation sink in for a few minutes, breaking my silence only to assure you - repeatedly, if necessary - that you read that first sentence right.
I base my assessment on the following criteria:
1. sense of purpose
2. intellectual integrity
3. political courage
4. progressive measures
5. respect for democracy
6. administrative competence.
Stephen Harper's government has shown great sense of purpose, a quality which Canadians have been unable to witness in their federal governments since the days of Brian Mulroney (except for, arguably, a brief period at the end of Jean Chrétien's career). Since taking office mere months ago, it has advanced a number of its constituency's traditional priorities: taxes have been lowered, spending has been cut, and packages have been introduced to improve government accountability and to begin the processes of electoral and Senate reform. Measures to stiffen criminal penalties are apparently on the way during this Parliamentary session. Meanwhile, the government has taken a strong and unequivacal position on Canada's presence in the world, especially on the mission in Afghanistan. If you were to compress the entire agenda of the Chrétien-Martin years into six months, you'd be hard-pressed to find as much purpose there besides the elimination of the deficit.
Brian Mulroney's government showed a comparable sense of purpose, but it was marred by a lack of intellectual integrity. Flip-flops were rampant, and it was very difficult to infer a coherent intellectual foundation from the administration's actions. This is not true of Stephen Harper's government. All of the above-named actions look like those of a fiscally conservative government, interventionist in foreign affairs, and concerned with the state of Canadian democracy. I deduct points for the GST cut, which is viewed by nearly every economist as being a worse way of achieving the Conservatives' stated aim of increased economic growth than the income tax cuts it replaced, but to an extent this is splitting hairs: a tax cut's a tax cut.
You want political courage? Stephen Harper's taken a page out of Joe Clark's book when it comes to governing as if you have a majority. The things is, Harper's doing it right, daring the Bloc to vote against a budget that addressed issues core to its existence (he also benefits from the fact that the 2006 Liberals are hardly going to bring back Paul Martin to lead them into a snap election as the 1980 Liberals did with Pierre Trudeau). Besides that, this government implemented a major spending cut in a minority government. Besides that, it did so with a surplus, and with the apparent support of none of the opposition parties. The traditional rule of minority governments is that you throw money around like a drunken sailor (especially if the money's there, which it now is) and let the next majority worry about the consequences. Instead, this government, which purports to believe in smaller government, is making government smaller.
And the measures are, for the most part, progressive (in the sense of "moving the country forward", rather in the sense of "leftist"). It's paying down the debt (again, instead of engaging in pre-election tax cuts and spending) which obviously puts public finances on a stabler footing. It's addressing the so-called democratic deficit with a vigour that Paul Martin could never even talk about, and which Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney never even cared to pay lip service to. I have a hard time taking serious issue with any of the recent spending cuts, with the likely exception of the court access program. Kyoto? I'll take a government that outright refuses to meet the targets over one that pays lip service to pretending to any day. I deduct points for its regressive attitudes on crime (which are very similar to the New Democrats'), but even looking at this from my ideologically-slanted perspective, I am convinced that Canada will be better off after two (or whatever) years of Stephen Harper than it would have been under another two years of Paul Martin, or Jean Chrétien.
This government gives every indication that it respects democracy, though, as a minority, it sort of has to. Its proposal for fixed election dates empowers the people in the face of government. More importantly, the agenda it's delivered bears a great resemblance to the agenda it promised to deliver during the election campaign, which has the effect of making elections somewhat more meaningful. I deduct points for Harper's feud with the Parliamentary Press Gallery (which is, I'm certain, guilty of every charge he's pressed upon it, though such guilt does not excuse his actions), but not for the David Emerson defection or the Michael Fortier Senate appointment, neither of which, in my opinion, damages democracy in the country.
The last criterion, administrative competence, cannot be accurate judged at this point. But I have trouble believing that Harper's record on this will be worse than Chrétien's or Mulroney's (or, let's be honest, Trudeau's).
I'm still disinclined to vote Conservative, especially as long as they keep running the utterly useless Rahim Jaffer in my riding. But I was more disinclined still to vote for any other government I've witnessed since I achieved political maturity.
If voters in democracies really get the government they deserve, this one says nicer things about Canadians than have been said in a long time.
|
It's early to judge, but from where I'm sitting Stephen Harper looks like the best Prime Minister since Pierre Trudeau.
I'll just let that observation sink in for a few minutes, breaking my silence only to assure you - repeatedly, if necessary - that you read that first sentence right.
I base my assessment on the following criteria:
1. sense of purpose
2. intellectual integrity
3. political courage
4. progressive measures
5. respect for democracy
6. administrative competence.
Stephen Harper's government has shown great sense of purpose, a quality which Canadians have been unable to witness in their federal governments since the days of Brian Mulroney (except for, arguably, a brief period at the end of Jean Chrétien's career). Since taking office mere months ago, it has advanced a number of its constituency's traditional priorities: taxes have been lowered, spending has been cut, and packages have been introduced to improve government accountability and to begin the processes of electoral and Senate reform. Measures to stiffen criminal penalties are apparently on the way during this Parliamentary session. Meanwhile, the government has taken a strong and unequivacal position on Canada's presence in the world, especially on the mission in Afghanistan. If you were to compress the entire agenda of the Chrétien-Martin years into six months, you'd be hard-pressed to find as much purpose there besides the elimination of the deficit.
Brian Mulroney's government showed a comparable sense of purpose, but it was marred by a lack of intellectual integrity. Flip-flops were rampant, and it was very difficult to infer a coherent intellectual foundation from the administration's actions. This is not true of Stephen Harper's government. All of the above-named actions look like those of a fiscally conservative government, interventionist in foreign affairs, and concerned with the state of Canadian democracy. I deduct points for the GST cut, which is viewed by nearly every economist as being a worse way of achieving the Conservatives' stated aim of increased economic growth than the income tax cuts it replaced, but to an extent this is splitting hairs: a tax cut's a tax cut.
You want political courage? Stephen Harper's taken a page out of Joe Clark's book when it comes to governing as if you have a majority. The things is, Harper's doing it right, daring the Bloc to vote against a budget that addressed issues core to its existence (he also benefits from the fact that the 2006 Liberals are hardly going to bring back Paul Martin to lead them into a snap election as the 1980 Liberals did with Pierre Trudeau). Besides that, this government implemented a major spending cut in a minority government. Besides that, it did so with a surplus, and with the apparent support of none of the opposition parties. The traditional rule of minority governments is that you throw money around like a drunken sailor (especially if the money's there, which it now is) and let the next majority worry about the consequences. Instead, this government, which purports to believe in smaller government, is making government smaller.
And the measures are, for the most part, progressive (in the sense of "moving the country forward", rather in the sense of "leftist"). It's paying down the debt (again, instead of engaging in pre-election tax cuts and spending) which obviously puts public finances on a stabler footing. It's addressing the so-called democratic deficit with a vigour that Paul Martin could never even talk about, and which Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney never even cared to pay lip service to. I have a hard time taking serious issue with any of the recent spending cuts, with the likely exception of the court access program. Kyoto? I'll take a government that outright refuses to meet the targets over one that pays lip service to pretending to any day. I deduct points for its regressive attitudes on crime (which are very similar to the New Democrats'), but even looking at this from my ideologically-slanted perspective, I am convinced that Canada will be better off after two (or whatever) years of Stephen Harper than it would have been under another two years of Paul Martin, or Jean Chrétien.
This government gives every indication that it respects democracy, though, as a minority, it sort of has to. Its proposal for fixed election dates empowers the people in the face of government. More importantly, the agenda it's delivered bears a great resemblance to the agenda it promised to deliver during the election campaign, which has the effect of making elections somewhat more meaningful. I deduct points for Harper's feud with the Parliamentary Press Gallery (which is, I'm certain, guilty of every charge he's pressed upon it, though such guilt does not excuse his actions), but not for the David Emerson defection or the Michael Fortier Senate appointment, neither of which, in my opinion, damages democracy in the country.
The last criterion, administrative competence, cannot be accurate judged at this point. But I have trouble believing that Harper's record on this will be worse than Chrétien's or Mulroney's (or, let's be honest, Trudeau's).
I'm still disinclined to vote Conservative, especially as long as they keep running the utterly useless Rahim Jaffer in my riding. But I was more disinclined still to vote for any other government I've witnessed since I achieved political maturity.
If voters in democracies really get the government they deserve, this one says nicer things about Canadians than have been said in a long time.
