There's always a 'but'

Stephen Harper's accomplishments are set out in today's National Post editorial.

Mr. Harper certainly deserves a lot of credit for his accomplishments . . . In short order after the merger, he organized and won a leadership race that served largely to unite the two rival clans. Then he launched immediately into an election campaign that he nearly won. Since last year's national ballot, Mr. Harper has out-fundraised the Liberals, built a stronger national party structure, orchestrated a successful policy conference that filed off the roughest edges of his party's platform, worked hard at finding new local candidates and committed himself to building a base in Quebec -- a task he almost succeeded at earlier this spring when, for a time, the Conservatives appeared set to surpass the Liberals' support in that province.

And as usual, there is always a 'but':

Still, for all he has accomplished, we cannot say with confidence that Mr. Harper is the man to take the Conservatives to power. With all the Liberals' troubles, the Conservatives should be far ahead of the ruling party in the polls. They are not, and have not been, even at the height of the Gomery commission's revelations . . .

(W)e imagine the trouble lies with how the message is being delivered. Mr. Harper is a glum, moody figure who has shown little enthusiasm for the rituals of mass-media politics and for the simple glad-handing expected of party chiefs. And instead of hiring communications staff who make up for these weaknesses, he has hired glum, clannish people who reinforce them.

In a contest of personalities, perhaps Harper wouldn't win -- but this 'angry', 'dour' nonsense is getting out of hand. The Post also says:

We have had our differences with the Tory boss, to be sure -- most notably, when we wondered in print last fall whether Canada still had a "conservative" party, given Mr. Harper's endorsement of Liberal deals with the provinces on health care and transfer payments, and the party's failure to come out boldly in support of ballistic missile defence. (He grumpily shot back that Canada had a conservative party -- "what it lacks is a national conservative newspaper.")

Why the adjective 'grumpily'? Why an adjective at all? Why the characterization of Harper as a 'glum, moody figure'?

Even if these assessments of his character are true, certainly the Post isn't advocating a slick glad-handing, smooth-talker as leader because he would give more soothing sound-bites?

Personality should not be at issue when assessing the quality of a leader. Character should. Personality allows one to engage socially, it is what one says. Character is what defines a person, and it is what one does.

For all the media accounts of Harper's lack of engaging personality, he has drawn together two divergent parties, and kept them balanced. He has been pragmatic in his choice of battles despite the media rage against him. He has overthrown tradition to show support for his MPs (by voting for the budget which included the Atlantic Accord -- Opposition parties traditionally vote against the budget, regardless of its content.) He has shown the ability to compromise with people, without compromising his principles -- the same-sex issue comes to mind with free votes being allowed on issues of conscience. He has shown loyalty and patience in the Grewal affair -- and has been reviled for it --- when Paul Martin's own actions, and his loyalty to Murphy and Dosanjh remain largely unquestioned.

It was the media who created the perception of Paul Martin, saviour of Canada's finances. It was the media who created an environment where Martin's ascention to the PMO was greeted with the awe of a coronation. We've since learned that this saviour has feet of clay -- but the media is loathe to chip away at this fragile shell of leader.

When did smiling while lying, and smug grins at having put one over on the public, become more of an asset for a leader than refusing to parse words when dealing with systemic deceit?

Why are we looking for showmanship over leadership? Jack Layton has toned down his rhetoric of late, becoming sedate, soft-talking -- does anyone believe that Jack has had an inherant reformation? It's all window-dressing. The new public persona doesn't change the underlying message of the man -- nor does it make it more palatable.

Canada is fast becoming a nation of show rather than substance -- of platitude rather than principle. The media persists in this wrong-headed search for a leader with 'charisma' and 'personality' by playing up what it perceives to be Harper's flaws.

Were the situation reversed and Martin in opposition and if a Conservative government were playing games with the democratic process, undermining the integrity of parliament, threating and accusing his MPs, and making a mockery of House procedures -- I wonder how sunny his disposition would be -- and I wonder if the media would consider it an issue worthy of so much ink and editorial space.