THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

September 18, 2008

Stephane Dion is not a leader? Is Harper either?

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 10:34 AM ET

I once remember Andrew Sullivan, that tireless blogger and commentator on American politics, distinguishing government from politicts in a very interesting way. Government, he said, is an incremental process involving detailed legislation and backroom negotiation. Politics, on the other hand, is something more theatrical and personality-driven. It is about convincing people to share in a certain vision for the country, province, state, or town, and moving them to action. This is usually accomplished with a combination of rhetorical sensibility, admirable character, and a healthy balance of populism and independence of thought. The master of Politics is what we might call a leader.

This brings us to our current election, where the Prime Minister has the reputation of being a strong leader. The Conservative Party continues to brand Stephane Dion as not up to the task of leading, while describing Stephen Harper as being unquestionably prepared for it. And a large part of the country seems to agree. Andrew Coyne of Maclean's had something to say about this in a recent column and in a blog post:

"But is that all there is to it? What do we mean by a strong leader? Strong in what sense? Leader in what sense? The word "leader" suggests someone who will lead us to something or somewhere. Yet Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals, only without the corruption. His message so far in the campaign has been much the same. There's been little sense of where he would take the country if re-elected, and little likelihood of one emerging. Indeed, he is at pains to emphasize his belief that the election will probably return another minority Parliament — the very one whose dissolution he had lately demanded."

So why do we persist in accepting this definition of Harper? Could it be the lack of real competitors to the title; our low standards; a dispiriting mix of the two?

More entries on: Election 2008

Previous: Death by a thousand inappropriate comments
Next: Let's Talk Transit

---

Reader comments:

---

Post your own comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---