Cut and paste.
Persichilli: Stephen Harper has failed to connect with Canadians
August 01, 2010 Angelo Persichilli
Big issues define a country, small issues define a person. In the last decade, we have been able to define many people in government, while the country is still waiting to be shaped according to the parameters of the new millennium.
In the first half of this decade, we lived in Liberal Land and in the second part we are dealing with the Conservative Kingdom. They have many things in common. For example, both realms have been defined by small issues, not nation-building initiatives. As well, both governing parties have been good economic managers but were, and are, unable to capitalize on it in terms of popularity.
The Liberals put Canada’s finances in order after the big recession of the early ’90s, and the Conservatives are sailing quite successfully through the dangerous waters of the short but deep global economic crisis.
Even so, Jean Chrétien was forced out by his fellow Liberals in the middle of a booming economy; Paul Martin lost the country altogether even as his government was racking up huge financial surpluses; Stephen Harper’s government has not been able to rise beyond 33 per cent to 35 per cent in the polls.
Why is it that successful governments no longer seem able to capture the imagination of Canadians?
It’s because leaders are too busy handling the annoying debates around small issues and aren’t dealing with country-shaping programs.
As the “Little Guy from Shawinigan,” Chrétien was a winning leader but he became a liability when he was framed as arrogant and his administration was portrayed as corrupt.
The good job done by Martin in dealing with the deficit was overshadowed by his personal ambition when his team was blamed for Liberal feuding.
If Chrétien was defined by his perceived arrogance and Martin by his ambition, what about the current Prime Minister?
In the eyes of Canadians, Harper’s image is still blurry — and, after more than four years in government, he risks being defined by that blurry image.
He’s respected when he is on the world stage or handling tough issues, but he seems to have difficulty in running the day-to-day business of the government without upsetting someone. To many voters, the Prime Minister comes across as being like the successful athlete who likes to pick fights back home in the off-season.
Trying to cut public funding for political parties, prorogation, the Guergis-Jaffer comedy, the Afghanistan secret documents, and long/short census form controversy, to name just some, are phony or poorly managed issues that the Harper government easily could have avoided. After all, Canadians only ask to be properly informed and not rushed through decisions they might even agree with if the issues were properly explained to them.
The opposition — in this case the Liberals — has no interest in abandoning petty politics based on innuendo and character assassination. That means it’s up to the government — in this case the Conservatives — to move beyond the poisoned environment that has characterized Canadian politics for the past 10 years.
This is not a huge problem if you are aware of it. As Machiavelli wrote in The Prince: “In the beginning, the disease is easy to cure but hard to diagnose; with the passage of time, having gone unrecognized and unmedicated, it becomes easy to diagnose but hard to cure.” I don’t know if four years is a long time, but certainly Harper risks being defined by a blurry image in which everyone can see what they want.
I know that Harper is not the person his political enemies are trying to sell to Canadians, but this is not about what I think. This is an issue between him and Canadians, and Harper has a small window of opportunity left to clear this up before the next election.
Angelo Persichilli is the political editor of Corriere Canadese. His column appears Sunday.
Losing Mr. Persichilli is not a good thing for the Stephen Harpers.
WFDS
No comments:
Post a Comment