The Harper Record
Edited by Teresa Healy. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. 504 pp. $24.95, or download for free at www.policyalternatives.ca.
***

Even though The Harper Record was only published in October, in political terms that’s an eternity, especially given the recent efforts by the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois to form a coalition government.

But there’s always something to be said for understanding a government’s past actions and the history of our leaders, and the Centre for Policy Alteratives gathered together 47 different researchers to provide vital context to the screaming headlines. Steve Patten, a political science professor at the University of Alberta, wrote one of the early chapters, entitled Understanding Harper, and talks about Harper’s roots and “political DNA” as a firewall letter-writing, deficit-reviling young man.

SEE spoke with Patten about Harper’s reputation as a great strategist, recent reversals, and the friends he keeps.

SEE Magazine: Do you think Harper underestimated the opposition party with the recent economic statement, which included the cuts to public funds for parties, that’s prompted the coalition efforts?

Steve Patten: Harper thought he could do what he did all last summer and eventually one of them, likely the Liberals, would cave. He didn’t understand the extent to which the parties were frustrated. ... Harper was looking two or three moves down the game in terms of preparing for the next election.

SEE: Does this downgrade his reputation as being the smartest guy in the room?

SP: It certainly shows the extent to which even those who are strategically farsighted can make mistakes. If the Liberals or the New Democrats had said to the other, “No, I can’t compromise on this, and this coalition just isn’t going to work,” then Stephen Harper would have been able to do what he wanted, and he would have been hailed as this strategist setting himself up for a majority down the road. This wasn’t a huge strategic misstep; it was just a miscalculation. He was playing the long game, and not understanding what short game was about. If this coalition does become the government, there will be a lot of Conservatives reflecting on whether or not they want to give Stephen Harper another chance.

SEE: In the book, you say Harper’s reputation for smarts may be a little exaggerated, that there are lots of similarly smart people in politics.

SP: What I meant was there’s lots of smart policy people. In many ways, he is uniquely talented in terms of strategy. I don’t think it’s because he’s smarter than others; it’s because he’s a very disciplined person. When it come strategy, one of the most important things to look beyond the moment. That takes discipline, because you have to do things that are counterintuitive. Harper’s willing to use the power of his position to make sure that they can act strategically, to put controls on what his cabinet ministers are saying, to suffer the criticism of the media knowing that he could suffer that criticism — but at the same time, in the end, he was able to stop certain kinds of messages from getting out.

SEE: Did you see his reversal on the deficit coming? It’s not in keeping with his history.

SP: Harper and [Jim] Flaherty, as well as all the other economic ministers — [Tony} Clement, [Stockwell] Day, and [John] Baird — all of them entered into politics in the mid-1990s as part of the anti-deficit, anti-government conservatism that was related to Preston Manning, Mike Harris, and Ralph Klein. So what they are saying about the deficit today is surprising, except that when you consider that the majority of economics and politicians — including conservative politicians like George Bush — are saying the

same thing.

SEE: Do you think the Calgary School, the group of conservative thinkers like Tom Flanagan, would still welcome him as one of their own?

SP: We tend to overstate the “Calgary School” as if it were a unified group that has meetings every other Tuesday. One of the realities of being a political leader is making decisions that will sometimes anger your friends. Part of being strategically wise is to know when you can do that, but live through that. Too many critics like to paint him as an over-the-top ideologue with a hidden agenda who wants to radically transform Canada. I think that’s a misrepresentation. Others like to paint him as a social conservative with an evangelical agenda, and I don’t think that’s fair either. He is a truly and deeply conservative person, but he is more of a libertarian. Because he exists within a party with all kinds of other conservatives, he has made peace with social and populist conservatives, but he’s always done it in pursuit of long-term strategic goals.

SEE: Was the idea of discontinuing public funding for political parties a boon for the populist part of the party?

SP: The old conservative, populist take on this is that you don’t want public funding of any kind of political party, interest group, or social movement. That anybody that is worth his or her weight as a lobbyist or political action group will be able to raise money privately. That’s the kind of approach that people were rejecting and saying that political parties are more than just private organizations; political parties are part of a very public process and there is a place for public funding. If they undo that, I think it’s a real step backwards in terms of the position of political parties in our democracy.