On a Liberal PM calling a Conservative predecessor for his thoughts on a file: I don't recall the circumstances, but I was told at the time that Justin Trudeau called Harper and Mulroney sometimes too. And I remember nearly Harper's entire PMO coming out to Eddie Goldenberg's book launch. Leaders sometimes permit themselves broader networks that they discourage further down the hierarchy.
Paul, I've always enjoyed your writing about Stephen Harper. While he's as close as there is to a political hero for me, when I read a lot of your work about him, I'd read a passage and ask myself, "Does Wells mean that as a positive, or a negative? And how would someone from a different perspective from me view it?"
Your willingness to try to understand him in depth, rather than kneejerk criticism, or fanboying, was always appreciated. This piece is a nice reminder.
“Conservatives, especially the growing population of Conservatives to Harper’s right, are increasingly of the opinion that he blew his decade in power and has little to show for it. Perhaps they can compare notes after any of them has been in power for a decade.”
Great article and assessment of a genuine thinker and great leader who can see and admit that leadership is hard and he made mistakes. Good for Harper.
It is interesting that the Carney trade team reached out to him for advice and while these conversations are privileged, I hope that the cross party consultation was productive and is a lesson to today’s politicians. When trouble strikes a good leader looks for advice from wherever they can find it. Harper and Carney worked alongside each other years ago and they have set partisanship aside for a greater good. That’s a good thing for everyone, especially ordinary citizens who are looking for rays of hope in a dark time for trade relations with the United States.
The Harper government tried, but the military file was constantly used by the Opposition, the Laurentian establishment and their media, to batter them, and in two cases basically forcing elections.
From the Afghan detainee file, which occured on Martin's watch, but was left for Harper to deal with, the helicopter procurement mess left from the Chretien era, the F35 procurement which was weaponized by the opposition, Peter McKay's misjudgements, the entrenched sexual misconduct issues (which led to the Deschamps report, which Trudeau subsequently ignored). The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was developed by Harper, which Trudeau subsequently screwed up, and led to Trudeau's witchhunt against Admiral Norman.
John, you write in part "... we seem to treat people who change their minds as if they had committed a cardinal sin ..."
I agree with your point but I think the reason is that many of those folks - at least to my observation - don't particularly explain why "this time is different". Put in other words, it seems to me that an honest discussion of circumstances and how that causes one to re-examine is very important. Now, that doesn't provide adequate cover for the one track zealots who want no change and it absolutely doesn't assist those woeful folk who yesterday said white and today say black but claim that there hasn't been any change.
I absolutely want someone to keep thinking. Times do change; circumstances are different; God help us but we do need to allow our opinions to mature and improve with age. [I am aged so I speak from experience but without, alas, any humility whatsoever.]
Ultimately, keep thinking and when you change positions, own it, explain it and defend it.
Liberal here. I'll tell you what I've always admired about Stephen Harper: this guy viscerally detested Central-Canadian-woke-left-campus-radical-pronoun-in-bio people like me. He just did. Read the book Paul linked to - it's frightening in places, how monstrous he thinks people like me are. And he went in there every day and did the best he could to lead a Canada that would work as well for people like me as for people like, you know, 90% of Paul's commentariat.
As Paul says in the article, a lot of Liberals always thought he was trying to con Canadians by acting statesmanlike, but I always thought he was genuinely trying to be statesmanlike. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't always easy for him. His government sometimes missed the mark. But he had a mostly, I think, noble sense of what his job was, and he gave it everything he had.
And, Paul, I've always loved your coverage of him. Sometimes it's made me like him more than I otherwise would have, sometimes less. But something about him has always brought out the best in you as a writer and an analyst. So I'm glad of this piece.
You reminded me of how I found his apology on behalf of Canada to the former students of Indian Residential Schools to be genuine and appropriate. His government didn’t really act in a way commensurate with it (witness how much more Justin Trudeau’s government did for reconciliation with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples) but it still mattered.
I found Harper too secretive when he was PM. I liked the book Party of One by Michael Harris. I found his ideas about deregulation our banking system scary. I am uncomfortable with his connections to right wing Christian groups and his relationship with Preston Manning.
It strikes me that all our ex-PMs - most of them Liberals - would entirely agree with Mr. Harper’s assessment of that we cannot make ourselves ‘entirely dependent’ on the US. Still, a noteworthy shift in tone, being stated publicly and it matters to read this. Hopefully these older leaders’ counsel is being sought by current leadership in Ottawa. And you are absolutely right Paul about the ‘bogey-man’ that diehard Liberals have tried to make of ex-PMSH for a decade; some even keep trying even as their own party veers right to gain back the centre. No longer helpful to play that tune … as I see some are doing in the comments.
I'm looking forward to his memoirs. I believed he had real promise before and after the 2006 election, but he got caught up in simplistic mythologies: that the press was out to get him (most weren't, even when he served up big gobs of humiliation); that Ottawa was against Alberta (it wouldn't have been, if oil and climate change mitigation had both been priorities); that Elections Canada screwed him; that there was never a difference between the political and the administrative; that you really can't trust the people and their representatives. All of these combined to kill the affections of mainstream Canadians. I liked the guy. I thought a young man with small kids was a refreshig change after the previous two PMs. I appreciated the way he showed up unannounced at Hill christmas parties and had his picture taken with children. It was obvious that he was not a natural retail politician. That was enduring, too. Seems he has learned to cut slack to others, to believe people can be "wrong" and still decent. In all my criticisms of him, I never doubted for a second that he was completely loyal to Canada and wanted to make it a better place. I'm looking forward to his book.
I agree, except my experience within government during his time was that he and his team relied more on ideology than evidence. Perhaps this is something he has also reflected upon in subsequent years.
It is refreshing to hear that our PM has reached out to seek the views of past leaders on Canada’s path forward - particularly those that may have been perceived as having contrary views. Many if not most journalists pillory politicians for adopting policy positions that they see as being at odds with previous convictions, often accusing them of having no integrity - flip flopping or cynically ‘stealing’ the ideas of the opposition to obtain power. Our PM made no secret of being a pragmatist which from time to time will involve tempering one’s convictions or changing one’s mind. I hope that PW finds Mark Carney to be as interesting a leader as he evidently views Steven Harper!
The project to rehabilitate Harper's image has been inevitable. I remember Mulroney's, and feeling initially aggravated, and then realizing that I didn't feel the anger in my bones anymore, and then nostalgia got the better of me and I discovered a fondness.
I still feel an aversion to Mr. Harper, but his allusions to behaving badly and effort for self discovery this signifies give me hope that he may turn out to be, probably not a mensch like Mulroney, warts and all, but at least someone whose words I would consider.
His comment, for example, "We just cannot be in a position in the future where we can be threatened in this way and not have ... leverage” is the most succinct, non-partisan thing said that aggregates Canadians across the rainbow.
Too late, we get smart. Mr. Poilievre should pay attention.
"...we have been grossly overweight the United States as a country. And there’s no reason for that."
Of course there is a reason for that; the British empire was gone and the USA was happy to run a trade deficit for the world. We had a good thing going for a while, but it was always fragile. The trade and fiscal surpluses of the Chretien/Martin years were funded in part by the American consumer. Alan Greenspan opened the credit floodgates and Americans bought pickup trucks from Windsor and BC lumber for their McMansions. Then we took that money to buy cheap stuff from China, then China recycled their surplus into our real estate market. What a great deal! Economic efficiency FTW! We sat back and watched our property values skyrocket and enjoyed the fruits of American debt and Chinese foreign investment. How could the good times ever end?
A leading proponent of this vision was one Stephen Harper. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing a stimulus package during the GFC, and then promptly went right back to cutting spending - government debt bad/mortgage debt good. He signed a trade deal with China. He guaranteed mortgage bailouts in law, allowing for massive new mortgage debt to prop up the economy.
It's good that he is reconsidering his previous assumptions. A Kenney-style mea culpa would be nice. The magical thinking of the 90's and 00's needs to go. The world has changed, and our assumptions need to change with it.
On a Liberal PM calling a Conservative predecessor for his thoughts on a file: I don't recall the circumstances, but I was told at the time that Justin Trudeau called Harper and Mulroney sometimes too. And I remember nearly Harper's entire PMO coming out to Eddie Goldenberg's book launch. Leaders sometimes permit themselves broader networks that they discourage further down the hierarchy.
The power of introspection is one of the greatest traits a person can possess.
Paul, I've always enjoyed your writing about Stephen Harper. While he's as close as there is to a political hero for me, when I read a lot of your work about him, I'd read a passage and ask myself, "Does Wells mean that as a positive, or a negative? And how would someone from a different perspective from me view it?"
Your willingness to try to understand him in depth, rather than kneejerk criticism, or fanboying, was always appreciated. This piece is a nice reminder.
“Conservatives, especially the growing population of Conservatives to Harper’s right, are increasingly of the opinion that he blew his decade in power and has little to show for it. Perhaps they can compare notes after any of them has been in power for a decade.”
Pure art.
Yet those people are wrong, and are quickly being pushed to the fringe.
I guess the challenge then is, how can we all come together a bit more? The fringes can be dangerous places.
Great article and assessment of a genuine thinker and great leader who can see and admit that leadership is hard and he made mistakes. Good for Harper.
It is interesting that the Carney trade team reached out to him for advice and while these conversations are privileged, I hope that the cross party consultation was productive and is a lesson to today’s politicians. When trouble strikes a good leader looks for advice from wherever they can find it. Harper and Carney worked alongside each other years ago and they have set partisanship aside for a greater good. That’s a good thing for everyone, especially ordinary citizens who are looking for rays of hope in a dark time for trade relations with the United States.
"People who change their minds are more interesting than people who never do."
- Very true but we seem to treat people who change their minds as if they had committed a cardinal sin
"My advice to the government is: yes, absolutely spend more on defense. We should have been doing it all along."
- Hey wait, you were Prime Minister, why did YOUR government not spend more on defense?
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/jason-kenneys-mea-culpa
Not from Harper, but from a key player in that government
Thanks for the link.
The Harper government tried, but the military file was constantly used by the Opposition, the Laurentian establishment and their media, to batter them, and in two cases basically forcing elections.
From the Afghan detainee file, which occured on Martin's watch, but was left for Harper to deal with, the helicopter procurement mess left from the Chretien era, the F35 procurement which was weaponized by the opposition, Peter McKay's misjudgements, the entrenched sexual misconduct issues (which led to the Deschamps report, which Trudeau subsequently ignored). The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy was developed by Harper, which Trudeau subsequently screwed up, and led to Trudeau's witchhunt against Admiral Norman.
John, you write in part "... we seem to treat people who change their minds as if they had committed a cardinal sin ..."
I agree with your point but I think the reason is that many of those folks - at least to my observation - don't particularly explain why "this time is different". Put in other words, it seems to me that an honest discussion of circumstances and how that causes one to re-examine is very important. Now, that doesn't provide adequate cover for the one track zealots who want no change and it absolutely doesn't assist those woeful folk who yesterday said white and today say black but claim that there hasn't been any change.
I absolutely want someone to keep thinking. Times do change; circumstances are different; God help us but we do need to allow our opinions to mature and improve with age. [I am aged so I speak from experience but without, alas, any humility whatsoever.]
Ultimately, keep thinking and when you change positions, own it, explain it and defend it.
“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”
― John Maynard Keynes
Liberal here. I'll tell you what I've always admired about Stephen Harper: this guy viscerally detested Central-Canadian-woke-left-campus-radical-pronoun-in-bio people like me. He just did. Read the book Paul linked to - it's frightening in places, how monstrous he thinks people like me are. And he went in there every day and did the best he could to lead a Canada that would work as well for people like me as for people like, you know, 90% of Paul's commentariat.
As Paul says in the article, a lot of Liberals always thought he was trying to con Canadians by acting statesmanlike, but I always thought he was genuinely trying to be statesmanlike. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't always easy for him. His government sometimes missed the mark. But he had a mostly, I think, noble sense of what his job was, and he gave it everything he had.
And, Paul, I've always loved your coverage of him. Sometimes it's made me like him more than I otherwise would have, sometimes less. But something about him has always brought out the best in you as a writer and an analyst. So I'm glad of this piece.
You reminded me of how I found his apology on behalf of Canada to the former students of Indian Residential Schools to be genuine and appropriate. His government didn’t really act in a way commensurate with it (witness how much more Justin Trudeau’s government did for reconciliation with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples) but it still mattered.
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1571589171655
I found Harper too secretive when he was PM. I liked the book Party of One by Michael Harris. I found his ideas about deregulation our banking system scary. I am uncomfortable with his connections to right wing Christian groups and his relationship with Preston Manning.
It strikes me that all our ex-PMs - most of them Liberals - would entirely agree with Mr. Harper’s assessment of that we cannot make ourselves ‘entirely dependent’ on the US. Still, a noteworthy shift in tone, being stated publicly and it matters to read this. Hopefully these older leaders’ counsel is being sought by current leadership in Ottawa. And you are absolutely right Paul about the ‘bogey-man’ that diehard Liberals have tried to make of ex-PMSH for a decade; some even keep trying even as their own party veers right to gain back the centre. No longer helpful to play that tune … as I see some are doing in the comments.
I'm looking forward to his memoirs. I believed he had real promise before and after the 2006 election, but he got caught up in simplistic mythologies: that the press was out to get him (most weren't, even when he served up big gobs of humiliation); that Ottawa was against Alberta (it wouldn't have been, if oil and climate change mitigation had both been priorities); that Elections Canada screwed him; that there was never a difference between the political and the administrative; that you really can't trust the people and their representatives. All of these combined to kill the affections of mainstream Canadians. I liked the guy. I thought a young man with small kids was a refreshig change after the previous two PMs. I appreciated the way he showed up unannounced at Hill christmas parties and had his picture taken with children. It was obvious that he was not a natural retail politician. That was enduring, too. Seems he has learned to cut slack to others, to believe people can be "wrong" and still decent. In all my criticisms of him, I never doubted for a second that he was completely loyal to Canada and wanted to make it a better place. I'm looking forward to his book.
I agree, except my experience within government during his time was that he and his team relied more on ideology than evidence. Perhaps this is something he has also reflected upon in subsequent years.
That's what I meant by mythologies.
It is refreshing to hear that our PM has reached out to seek the views of past leaders on Canada’s path forward - particularly those that may have been perceived as having contrary views. Many if not most journalists pillory politicians for adopting policy positions that they see as being at odds with previous convictions, often accusing them of having no integrity - flip flopping or cynically ‘stealing’ the ideas of the opposition to obtain power. Our PM made no secret of being a pragmatist which from time to time will involve tempering one’s convictions or changing one’s mind. I hope that PW finds Mark Carney to be as interesting a leader as he evidently views Steven Harper!
Fixed my misspelling of Rachael Thomas' first name. Sorry about that.
If you got it right this time, I can see why you made an honest mistake.
The project to rehabilitate Harper's image has been inevitable. I remember Mulroney's, and feeling initially aggravated, and then realizing that I didn't feel the anger in my bones anymore, and then nostalgia got the better of me and I discovered a fondness.
I still feel an aversion to Mr. Harper, but his allusions to behaving badly and effort for self discovery this signifies give me hope that he may turn out to be, probably not a mensch like Mulroney, warts and all, but at least someone whose words I would consider.
His comment, for example, "We just cannot be in a position in the future where we can be threatened in this way and not have ... leverage” is the most succinct, non-partisan thing said that aggregates Canadians across the rainbow.
Too late, we get smart. Mr. Poilievre should pay attention.
So much truth in this— I wish more of our politicians would embody this spirit——
“People who change their minds are more interesting than people who never do.”
I never liked Mr. Harper as a younger man or as a Prime Minister. I'm changing my mind (you see what I did there), or maybe he has.
I think time and self reflection do wonders in maturing one's thinking and perspective.
"...we have been grossly overweight the United States as a country. And there’s no reason for that."
Of course there is a reason for that; the British empire was gone and the USA was happy to run a trade deficit for the world. We had a good thing going for a while, but it was always fragile. The trade and fiscal surpluses of the Chretien/Martin years were funded in part by the American consumer. Alan Greenspan opened the credit floodgates and Americans bought pickup trucks from Windsor and BC lumber for their McMansions. Then we took that money to buy cheap stuff from China, then China recycled their surplus into our real estate market. What a great deal! Economic efficiency FTW! We sat back and watched our property values skyrocket and enjoyed the fruits of American debt and Chinese foreign investment. How could the good times ever end?
A leading proponent of this vision was one Stephen Harper. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing a stimulus package during the GFC, and then promptly went right back to cutting spending - government debt bad/mortgage debt good. He signed a trade deal with China. He guaranteed mortgage bailouts in law, allowing for massive new mortgage debt to prop up the economy.
It's good that he is reconsidering his previous assumptions. A Kenney-style mea culpa would be nice. The magical thinking of the 90's and 00's needs to go. The world has changed, and our assumptions need to change with it.