Harper may be many things, but he isn't 'mean spirited'

[d_rawk]

Always gobsmacked when pieces like this appear in The Star, of all places.

"I don't want to vote for Dion, but there is something that stops me from supporting Harper," a friend, neither involved nor interested in politics, told me last week.

He was concerned about Harper's "hidden agenda" and "because he appears to me as mean-spirited."

Asked why, he said: "That's what I read about him" and "that's the way I feel when I look at him on TV."

What I'm going to write here shouldn't be interpreted as an endorsement of Stephen Harper's programs or policies. It's exclusively about Harper the man, the human being.

I'm not a close friend of Harper's, but I know him very well, from speaking with him many times in the last five or six years, both for interviews and privately. I've done so with other prime ministers, cabinet ministers and political leaders. Some seemed very intelligent, others just smart, a few were naive. But none of them was mean-spirited. Saying that about Harper isn't just unfair, it's false.

I remember one meeting with him in Ottawa on Feb. 27, the day after his government presented the budget. I told him I expected tougher initiatives to provoke the Liberals into going to the polls. He answered that "there wasn't much room to play. We presented a plan we really believe is good for Canadians."

I pressed the subject, talking about the Afghan war. I suggested that co-opting John Manley into the Afghan commission gave a way out to the Liberals, at a time when they really were in a corner. "Pushing the envelope would have really embarrassed the Liberals," I said.

His answer surprised me: "Angelo, when lives of young Canadians are at stake, you don't play partisan politics. If only one of those boys and girls fighting in Afghanistan dies because I've played partisan politics, I would never rest for the rest of my life." This conversation took place in an informal meeting, not an interview. But it helps in understanding the man, rather than the politician.

I realize that not many Canadians get to have private conversations with the Prime Minister, but it's also true that nobody has a valid reason to say that he is "mean-spirited" or has a "hidden agenda."

We can argue he hasn't kept all the promises he made, but can anybody name one politician who has? Have we forgotten Pierre Trudeau's promise not to implement wage and price controls? What about the Liberals denouncing the GST and then using it to balance the budget?

Is Harper mean-spirited because he has cut funding for some social programs? What about Paul Martin reducing transfer payments to the provinces and cutting money for medicare and education six years in a row? Isn't he "the best minister of finance we ever had?"

We say that Harper is "mean" because he runs a controlled operation. What about Stéphane Dion who, according to some Liberal strategists, doesn't listen to any adviser?

We criticize Harper because he doesn't put on a show for the media and doesn't kiss his son on the way to school, or because of the way he walks and dresses. With the cowboy vest, he's aggressive; with the sweater, he's phony. Did we forget the picture of prime minister Jean Chrétien with his hands at the throat of a protester in Quebec?

Then we have the "hidden agenda." Is it like the 1993 campaign when the Liberals demonized the former government of Brian Mulroney on NAFTA, while, at the same time, they were secretly working to sign the deal with the Americans? Liberal leader Chrétien, through Jean Pelletier, privately told the former American ambassador, James Blanchard, to reassure Bill Clinton that "we do not want to kill NAFTA, we are a free trade party. Jean Chrétien is a free trader ... We are for it." It's in Blanchard's book Behind Embassy Doors.

Let's deal with the famous "firewall letter" Harper wrote in 2001 and the five points of the Alberta agenda:

* Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan. Isn't that what Québec has long had?

* Set up Alberta's own income-tax collection system. Quebec has its own collection system, and several other provinces, including Ontario, have given the idea consideration.

* Cancel the contract with the RCMP in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Don't Ontario and Quebec have their own police?

* Defy federal rules governing medicare. Several other provinces, notably Quebec, are already doing this with private, for-profit clinics that charge patients for access.

* Finally, reform the Senate. What's so scary about that?

It was a "manifesto" to get Ottawa's attention about the need to deal with Quebec without disregarding the reality of other provinces. You might disagree with his prognosis, but very few could dispute the diagnosis. Isn't Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty complaining now about the way his province is treated by Ottawa? What about Danny Williams with his Newfoundland and Labrador grievances?

Harper was never against Quebec. He wanted Alberta to be treated like Quebec. The Calgary Herald reminded us last week that in 1993, when he was a Reform party MP, Harper "introduced a private member's bill that urged the federal government to insist that any provincial government that wanted to hold a referendum on sovereignty, must do so with a clear question." Isn't that what the Liberals did with the Clarity Act, but only after the scare of the referendum in 1995?

My point is simple: If we want to vote against Harper, we can find reasons by examining his policies. But don't vote against him because he is a mean-spirited man with a hidden agenda. That's false. He is just a private man who happens to be Prime Minister.

[Birdy]

Jesus, this was printed in the Star?!? hahaha..

Thanks for posting this d_jango! Something i've long thought but didn't have the words/research to express.

Whoever this journalist is, I might be in love. It's about fucking time someone in the media told things straight up.

[d_rawk]

this was printed in the Star?!?

Heh, yeah! Bizarro world. It's an opinion piece, so I guess there is room to diverge from the editorial position. Encouraging when that happens.

Whoever this journalist is

Oops, crap, sometimes I forget to include the attribution. Glad you said that.

It is Angelo Persichilli.