Prime ministerial razzle-dazzle:
A how-to guide for Stephen Harper
Regan Sarmatiuk Staff
It’s official — Stephen Harper is to be sworn in as Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister on February 6, leaving Canadians to wonder about what the upcoming weeks and months will bring, and about the character and personality of their prime minister- elect.
Most of the journalists will tell you that “Stephen Harper himself would tell you he’s a prime example of policy over pizzazz,” as Carolyn Ryan of the CBC put it recently. And while many of Harper’s views may have softened or moved a bit further towards the center as of late, his public persona still has a ways to go, with a few rough and rigid edges that could stand to be smoothed over.
Nothing might illustrate this better than some recent news footage of Harper stiffly shaking hands with both his nine-year old son and his six-year old daughter after walking them to school. And of course, who could forget the fateful cowboy getup of July 2005? (In it, Harper’s facial expression resembled one that might be found on a cat whose owner had dressed it up in some sort of ridiculous costume that it utterly despised.) It can’t be fun to live with that much media scrutiny.
With contests such as CTV’s idol-esque “The Next Great Prime Minister” cropping up, Harper may want to shore up on the charisma — or the chutzpah, if you will — if he’d like to even contend for such a prestigious award. So what might Harper do to add a little razzle-dazzle to his image? A trip down prime ministerial memory lane (or even a simple jaunt through the transcripts of CPAC’s “The Prime Ministers” series) might provide some plausible personality tips that Harper could adapt and adopt as his own.
It is doubtful that Harper would ever pursue a flamboyant or “sexy” image along the lines of Pierre Trudeau, and as a hockey dad, it is doubtful that he’d be capable of attaining such an image even if he wanted to. Nor would he be likely to get very far with the grandiose pomposity that Mulroney made his own. Perhaps looking a bit further back might hold the key.
Harper could adapt his somewhat stern persona by adding an edge of toughness to it in the way of Charles Tupper, prime minister for about ten weeks in 1896. Jack Murray was quoted in “The Prime Ministers” as saying Tupper had a “stern look about him that meant business . . . people were always impressed when he was in a room.” And, according to Vincent Durant, he was “a bulldog of a man” who was no stranger to scandal. Apparently, he earned the title “Ram of Cumberland” in part due to his reputation as a womanizer.
Indeed, a bit of scandal might spice up Harper’s image a bit, and who better to look to for a prime ministerial example of scandal than Sir John A. Macdonald himself, the lone Canadian prime minister to be hoofed from the House of Commons due to bribery charges related to the infamous Pacific Scandal of 1873? Never mind his excessive drinking and alleged week-long benders. . .
Still, Macdonald seems to remain one of the most popular PMs of all time, elected a record six times, and finishing in eighth place in CBC’s polling for their “Greatest Canadian” series (right behind Don Cherry at number seven). Peter Waite was quoted in “The Prime Ministers” as saying that Macdonald “knew that popularity was power. But he didn’t seem to mind that fact.” Apparently, Sir John A. had such a way with people and such a perceived passion for Canada that Canadians were willing to see past the scandal to the heart of the man.
And with all of the “nice Canadian” reputations aside, perhaps Canadians secretly prefer a bit of scandal in a prime minister when the alternative is complete blandness. Lester B. Pearson is a potential illustration of this theory. Ever the consummate diplomat, Pearson gained a reputation as a “compromiser.” Ted Byfield remarked in “The Prime Ministers” that you “couldn’t hate Pearson, [and] couldn’t like Pearson.” Even called “gutless” by one of his cabinet ministers, Pearson’s inability to secure a majority government might just be proof that nice guys don’t move beyond minority governments.
The above is only an incomplete smattering of suggested personality types or traits that Harper might want to consider adopting for the sake of boosting his pizzazz quotient — we haven’t even touched on the goods that William Lyon Mackenzie King brought to the table. Of course, no foolproof formula for a Canadian brand of chutzpah has ever been patented, but certainly, some prime ministers have come pretty darn close. Harper just might do well to take note.
