Mr. Ordinary

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

For the second day running, the Ottawa Citizen has a fine political feature on its front page, this one by Don Butler about the political cult of the “ordinary guy”, which dictates that our political leaders, who practically by definition are extraordinary people, need to be made over as the schmoes  next door. Witness Harper the sweatered family man and Dion the cross-country skier and fisherman.

In fact both the leaders of our two major parties could be properly qualified as “intellectuals”, which nowadays seems everywhere to be a dirty word politically, perhaps with the exception of France.

In addition, Harper is that rarest of animals in political life, an introvert. Extroversion is so nearly universal a characteristic of political leaders that the media and the public hardly know how to handle it when one comes along who is not an extrovert.

I first met Stephen Harper when he was a Reform M.P., “class of ’93”. What was quite striking about him at the time was that unlike most of the new Reformers, many of whom came from the know-nothing school of populist politics (though I do not include Preston Manning in this), Harper knew and understood the ideas of his political opponents and the prevailing political orthodoxy. It was just that he disagreed with it.

It could be a thrill listening to him explain his viewpoints in precise counterpoint to conventional political wisdom. He was just so smart and, one might even say, learned.

But he was also quite obviously an introvert, and I would say quite shy. He could be awkward if the wall between journalist and politician were even briefly pierced. I remember walking across from Parliament Hill one day and congratulating him on either getting engaged or getting married — I forget which it was. What would have been an easy, relaxed moment with most politicians, turned out to be rather uncomfortable, as if I did not have the standing to intrude on his private life that way.

Most politicians make it easy for those of us on the journalistic side who sometimes are a little socially awkward ourselves. They are extroverts, and besides, because they love talking about themselves, and the role of politicians and journalists permits and encourages this, they do all the work that needs doing socially during our encounters. Not so Harper.

In later years, after Harper left Parliament for a time, I used to call him up fairly frequently to talk about political events. It was always stimulating; always an intellectual workout. In fact, I soon discovered that I preferred talking with him on the phone, because it spared us the uncomfortable moments of greeting and parting that accompanied an in-person interview, when you are supposed to just chit-chat affably.

Then, there was a hiatus of several years when we did not have any contact while I was in the Middle East with the Globe and Mail. By the time I came back he had become leader of the opposition. Unbeknownst to me, my son was enrolled in the same school his kids attended. As I was standing in the school yard on the first day of school, I had a tap on the shoulder, and there was Stephen Harper all dressed up in the sober blue suit appropriate to his position in life.

In an almost bewilderingly short time, we had each obviously run out of things to say. We could hardly launch into taxes or Canadian unity there in the schoolyard, and I found myself briefly considering “so I hear you are leader of the opposition now” as a conversational gambit. We stared at the tops of our shoes — something I remember well from my years as a student in England, but which actually doesn’t happen much over here, at least literally. 

I, for one, have no doubt that when he talked on the day of the election call about what being a father meant to him, he was sincere. I also have no doubt that it has been a difficult thing for him personally to serve all this up to us as political fodder, though the politician in him understands this needs to be done. And most of all, I wonder why the rest of us should care — why we demand this of our political leaders?

I can tell you, as many others in the Press Gallery can, that this is a very intelligent, thoughtful man. Of course we have also seen other sides of his personality during his years as prime minister — politically relevant sides of his personality, including his instincts for secrecy and control.

All these are worth considering as we go to vote.

But hasn’t history shown often enough that some great parents prove to be poor leaders and some great leaders are disappointments as parents? So what difference does it make as we consider how to vote?

After all, unlike me, most Canadians won’t even run into him at the PTA.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with the CBC and the Globe and Mail, and is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty, and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.