Harper's show of accomplishment
Has any government, anywhere, ever enjoyed a shorter honeymoon than Stephen Harper's? It was literally over before it started: Even before Mr. Harper and his Cabinet had been sworn in, word had spread of the appointments of David Emerson and Michael Fortier -- the one elected as a Liberal, the other unelected by anyone. Within minutes, the backlash had begun.
Yet not only did this not faze the rookie Prime Minister: He seemed almost to welcome it. It was as if he had set out deliberately to spoil his own victory party, to blow the froth off expectations, to confirm that pragmatism and realpolitik remained the defining ethos of our politics, whatever the change in government. In many ways, that set the style for Mr. Harper's government -- and it is very much his government -- in its first hundred days: ruthless, nervy, in-your-face, and not overly concerned about principle or consistency.
That is not to say it is without principle. It clearly retains longer-term ambitions to remake both the federal government and the federation on broadly Conservative lines. But, it is equally clear, it will not hesitate to compromise its virtue on the road to that Jerusalem. Nor is it greatly distressed that it might disappoint its own followers in the process. Indeed, it would be hard to disappoint them at this stage, most of the really important compromises having already been made, long before the Tories were elected.
The platform, with its carefully tailored Conservatism -- no real reduction in the size and scope of government, indeed no specific spending cuts of any kind, only a passel of "tax cuts" aimed at key voter groups -- was not only aimed at winning power, but at seeing them safely through their first months in office. It was expressly designed for a minority government, limited enough to present no obvious target for the opposition parties, popular enough to repel whatever objections they might devise. In a word, it's bulletproof.
So when the Conservatives boast of having "done what we said we would do," it has less to do with being principled than the appearance of it. The celebrated "five priorities" are not merely largely irrelevant to the main challenges before the country, they aren't even priorities. They're what the bureaucrats call "deliverables" -- concrete, bite-sized, designed to sustain an impression of progress while the government sets about its real business: winning a majority at the next election.
All the same, the government can legitimately claim a record of accomplishment, even at this early stage. The Accountability Act, in particular, is a landmark, which, if it survives the legislative process intact, will do much to clean up both politics and government in Ottawa. The budget delivered on two other election promises -- the GST cut and the child care allowance -- though each will be remembered more for what it prevented (respectively, larger income tax cuts and a federally funded Daycare Canada) than what it achieved. The crime bill, setting mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences, is red meat for red-meat conservatives. And while the "wait time guarantee" awaits talks with the provinces, the Health Minister has steered adroitly in the uncertain aftermath of the Chaoulli decision, embracing Quebec's cautious reforms even as he was fending off Alberta's more far-reaching proposals.
Outside of the famous five, the government's immediate preoccupation has been not so much with charting a new course as in getting off the one the Liberals had set us on -- not rolling back the state but simply slowing its headlong expansion. Hence, along with the daycare reversal, the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord on aboriginals and the disguised withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord.
Other measures hint at the government's longer-term agenda -- and its real priorities. The most striking departures have been in the area of foreign affairs: the Prime Minister's bold visit to the troops in Afghanistan, with that stirring call to Canadian "leadership;" the groundbreaking decision to withdraw funding from the Hamas regime in Palestine; the long-overdue designation of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group. And capping them all, the softwood lumber deal: evidence, perhaps, that better relations with the United States pays dividends.
Domestically, there are already signs of a cooling of the Conservative love affair with the provinces. The government's rhetoric with regard to the provincial complaint du jour, the "fiscal imbalance," is noticeably lukewarm, where once it was fervid. Moreover, there is evidence of an emerging federal agenda for the coming negotiations, a set of demands, chiefly with regard to the economic union, to match against those of the provinces, rather than the one-sided hand-off of federal powers and money once expected.
But these will not be enough, on their own, to assure victory at the next election, and the government knows it. Whatever their policy merits, they are chiefly designed to create an image of a decisive, assured prime minister, firmly in control and with a clear direction in mind -- unlike, you know. The promises the government has kept have been oddly of a piece in this regard with the promises it has broken -- notably in the area of democratic reform. All are intended to showcase the Prime Minister as alpha male.
Mr. Harper's view of politics is essentially tribal, or even feral. The worst of sins, in this view, is weakness: The public despises it, the opposition preys upon it. It is better to be respected than liked, better to be aloof than ingratiating, better to be wrong than indecisive. Hence his imperious approach to Cabinet (no statements that have not been cleared through the PMO), to caucus (I'll decide the committee chairmen, thank you), to the public ("get used to it," was his -- correct -- prescription for the effects of high oil prices) and, famously, the press.
It would be a mistake to say this government is unconcerned about appearances. It is obsessed with appearances. It just does not care to let the media define what they are. It may even be that the public enjoys seeing the national media cut down to size. At any rate, the Prime Minister and his handlers have made no secret of their disdain for media conventions, as much as media opinion, only appearing to misstep in the matter of the returning soldiers' coffins.
The Premier of Ontario, the Ethics Commissioner, the American ambassador, his own communications advisor: There doesn't seem to be anyone the Prime Minister has not been willing to antagonize. The one exception to all this strategic haughtiness has been Quebec, where Mr. Harper's approach has at times borne an eery resemblance to a charm offensive. Yet to date he has succeeded in keeping expectations in check, even getting away with giving the province rather less in the way of representation at UNESCO than he promised in the election. Mr. Harper's reading of the province is that it is less interested in moving this way or that on the old federalist-separatist axis than in changing the subject -- that there is an emerging constituency for the conservative message in the country's most over-taxed, over-regulated and over-indebted province, provided the messenger can be wrapped in the appropriate bunting. So far he appears to be right: Conservative support has surged in the province, at surprisingly little cost in the way of actual promises.
Indeed, the government looks to be in a remarkably strong position overall, considering its minority status. The parliamentary opposition is weak and demoralized, not even bothering to hide its fear of another election. Needing only the support of any one opposition party to pass legislation (an arithmetic consequence of the Emerson defection), Mr. Harper has taken the opportunity to play them off against each other, to the point that they seem almost to be courting him rather than the other way around. Any thought of a common front among the provinces, meanwhile, has disintegrated, as reality begins to intrude on the "fiscal imbalance" fantasy.
Indeed, with a 12-point lead in the polls, the Conservatives may be tempted to precipitate their own end, sooner rather than later, rather than wait for the opposition to do so. That will test whether there are in fact any principled underpinnings to the government's Machiavellian manoeuvres. There is little doubt a majority is within its grasp. The question is whether it will be a meaningful majority.
The objective in these first few weeks and months has been to imprint upon the public mind an image of professionalism and managerial competence, rehabilitating the Conservatives as a party of government. But if that is all they do, they will have no more of a mandate after the next election than the last: as the Not Liberal Party, rather than the Conservatives, promising to change the government but not the way we are governed.
Mr. Harper's challenge in coming months will be to begin to sketch the outlines of a bolder agenda -- to put his new-found credibility to good effect, inviting the country to follow him in a new direction: to lead, not just to manage.
Yet not only did this not faze the rookie Prime Minister: He seemed almost to welcome it. It was as if he had set out deliberately to spoil his own victory party, to blow the froth off expectations, to confirm that pragmatism and realpolitik remained the defining ethos of our politics, whatever the change in government. In many ways, that set the style for Mr. Harper's government -- and it is very much his government -- in its first hundred days: ruthless, nervy, in-your-face, and not overly concerned about principle or consistency.
That is not to say it is without principle. It clearly retains longer-term ambitions to remake both the federal government and the federation on broadly Conservative lines. But, it is equally clear, it will not hesitate to compromise its virtue on the road to that Jerusalem. Nor is it greatly distressed that it might disappoint its own followers in the process. Indeed, it would be hard to disappoint them at this stage, most of the really important compromises having already been made, long before the Tories were elected.
The platform, with its carefully tailored Conservatism -- no real reduction in the size and scope of government, indeed no specific spending cuts of any kind, only a passel of "tax cuts" aimed at key voter groups -- was not only aimed at winning power, but at seeing them safely through their first months in office. It was expressly designed for a minority government, limited enough to present no obvious target for the opposition parties, popular enough to repel whatever objections they might devise. In a word, it's bulletproof.
So when the Conservatives boast of having "done what we said we would do," it has less to do with being principled than the appearance of it. The celebrated "five priorities" are not merely largely irrelevant to the main challenges before the country, they aren't even priorities. They're what the bureaucrats call "deliverables" -- concrete, bite-sized, designed to sustain an impression of progress while the government sets about its real business: winning a majority at the next election.
All the same, the government can legitimately claim a record of accomplishment, even at this early stage. The Accountability Act, in particular, is a landmark, which, if it survives the legislative process intact, will do much to clean up both politics and government in Ottawa. The budget delivered on two other election promises -- the GST cut and the child care allowance -- though each will be remembered more for what it prevented (respectively, larger income tax cuts and a federally funded Daycare Canada) than what it achieved. The crime bill, setting mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences, is red meat for red-meat conservatives. And while the "wait time guarantee" awaits talks with the provinces, the Health Minister has steered adroitly in the uncertain aftermath of the Chaoulli decision, embracing Quebec's cautious reforms even as he was fending off Alberta's more far-reaching proposals.
Outside of the famous five, the government's immediate preoccupation has been not so much with charting a new course as in getting off the one the Liberals had set us on -- not rolling back the state but simply slowing its headlong expansion. Hence, along with the daycare reversal, the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord on aboriginals and the disguised withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord.
Other measures hint at the government's longer-term agenda -- and its real priorities. The most striking departures have been in the area of foreign affairs: the Prime Minister's bold visit to the troops in Afghanistan, with that stirring call to Canadian "leadership;" the groundbreaking decision to withdraw funding from the Hamas regime in Palestine; the long-overdue designation of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group. And capping them all, the softwood lumber deal: evidence, perhaps, that better relations with the United States pays dividends.
Domestically, there are already signs of a cooling of the Conservative love affair with the provinces. The government's rhetoric with regard to the provincial complaint du jour, the "fiscal imbalance," is noticeably lukewarm, where once it was fervid. Moreover, there is evidence of an emerging federal agenda for the coming negotiations, a set of demands, chiefly with regard to the economic union, to match against those of the provinces, rather than the one-sided hand-off of federal powers and money once expected.
But these will not be enough, on their own, to assure victory at the next election, and the government knows it. Whatever their policy merits, they are chiefly designed to create an image of a decisive, assured prime minister, firmly in control and with a clear direction in mind -- unlike, you know. The promises the government has kept have been oddly of a piece in this regard with the promises it has broken -- notably in the area of democratic reform. All are intended to showcase the Prime Minister as alpha male.
Mr. Harper's view of politics is essentially tribal, or even feral. The worst of sins, in this view, is weakness: The public despises it, the opposition preys upon it. It is better to be respected than liked, better to be aloof than ingratiating, better to be wrong than indecisive. Hence his imperious approach to Cabinet (no statements that have not been cleared through the PMO), to caucus (I'll decide the committee chairmen, thank you), to the public ("get used to it," was his -- correct -- prescription for the effects of high oil prices) and, famously, the press.
It would be a mistake to say this government is unconcerned about appearances. It is obsessed with appearances. It just does not care to let the media define what they are. It may even be that the public enjoys seeing the national media cut down to size. At any rate, the Prime Minister and his handlers have made no secret of their disdain for media conventions, as much as media opinion, only appearing to misstep in the matter of the returning soldiers' coffins.
The Premier of Ontario, the Ethics Commissioner, the American ambassador, his own communications advisor: There doesn't seem to be anyone the Prime Minister has not been willing to antagonize. The one exception to all this strategic haughtiness has been Quebec, where Mr. Harper's approach has at times borne an eery resemblance to a charm offensive. Yet to date he has succeeded in keeping expectations in check, even getting away with giving the province rather less in the way of representation at UNESCO than he promised in the election. Mr. Harper's reading of the province is that it is less interested in moving this way or that on the old federalist-separatist axis than in changing the subject -- that there is an emerging constituency for the conservative message in the country's most over-taxed, over-regulated and over-indebted province, provided the messenger can be wrapped in the appropriate bunting. So far he appears to be right: Conservative support has surged in the province, at surprisingly little cost in the way of actual promises.
Indeed, the government looks to be in a remarkably strong position overall, considering its minority status. The parliamentary opposition is weak and demoralized, not even bothering to hide its fear of another election. Needing only the support of any one opposition party to pass legislation (an arithmetic consequence of the Emerson defection), Mr. Harper has taken the opportunity to play them off against each other, to the point that they seem almost to be courting him rather than the other way around. Any thought of a common front among the provinces, meanwhile, has disintegrated, as reality begins to intrude on the "fiscal imbalance" fantasy.
Indeed, with a 12-point lead in the polls, the Conservatives may be tempted to precipitate their own end, sooner rather than later, rather than wait for the opposition to do so. That will test whether there are in fact any principled underpinnings to the government's Machiavellian manoeuvres. There is little doubt a majority is within its grasp. The question is whether it will be a meaningful majority.
The objective in these first few weeks and months has been to imprint upon the public mind an image of professionalism and managerial competence, rehabilitating the Conservatives as a party of government. But if that is all they do, they will have no more of a mandate after the next election than the last: as the Not Liberal Party, rather than the Conservatives, promising to change the government but not the way we are governed.
Mr. Harper's challenge in coming months will be to begin to sketch the outlines of a bolder agenda -- to put his new-found credibility to good effect, inviting the country to follow him in a new direction: to lead, not just to manage.
5/13/2006
