President's Commentary: Three lessons Stephen Harper could learn from Barack Obama

(18 Feb. 2009) -- 'Is it really asking too much for a Canadian prime minister to raise his game above the shabby politics of fear, partisanship and rigid ideology?'

President Obama comes to Canada for his first foreign state visit this week.

Obama’s campaign for the White House was astonishing in countless ways, and since winning so decisively in November he has moved with lightning speed to skillfully direct a massive economic stimulus plan through Congress.

By contrast, Prime Minister Harper emerged from Canada's October election with another minority. Soon after that he was forced to virtually beg the Governor General to shut down Parliament in order to save his government. He followed that with an historic U-turn on economic policy in order to get his 2009 budget through the Parliament.

The two leaders are polar opposites and their records speak volumes about their approach to public policy and public life.

Let’s get the obvious differences in style out of the way quickly. One is a great orator, the other hates to communicate, especially with the media. One has a sweeping vision for his country, the other is a controlling, micro-manager and administrator. One takes an empirical approach to difficult problems, the other is imperial. One is charismatic, the other is anything but.

On a more fundamental level there are three crucial lessons Harper could learn from Obama about politics in general and economic policy in particular.

Lesson #1: Hope trumps fear

Obama ran on a platform of “audacious hope.” His style is to talk to Americans as equals — in a style that reasonates with ordinary voters. He reminds Americans of their determination and ingenuity and makes them feel proud of their country. He focuses on solutions by engaging rivals in genuine debate on competing visions of the economy and the proper role of government.

By contrast, Harper talks down to Canadians in simplistic slogans and relies on policy gimmicks, repeatedly resorting to the politics of fear. In the last campaign, rather than engage in a real debate about public policy, he belittled the economic proposals of his rivals and wildly distorted a worthy idea put forward by the Liberals (taxing carbon and rewarding work).

He is obsessed with the concept of "strong" leadership and attacks rivals with an often mindless zeal. He once called Canada a “second-tier socialistic country in the worst sense of the term.” Unlike Obama, who inspired the world with the rallying cry, "Yes we can!", Harper's theme could easily have been, "No we can't."

Harper would do well to learn from Obama's example that people want their leaders – and leaders have a duty – to inspire hope, offer ideas and solutions, not trade on fear and cynicism.

Lesson #2: Cooperation trumps partisanship

Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage in cooperation and bipartisan collaboration. He appointed Democratic campaign rivals and opposition Republicans to top cabinet and government posts in an effort to build consensus and move his economic plan forward. He created the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) and appointed business and labour leaders to serve on it.

In contrast, Harper's every move seems guided by partisan calculation. His first priority appears to be winning 155 seats for his Conservative Party. His ill-fated fall economic update exemplified his divide-and-conquer approach.

Like Obama, Harper also created an economic advisory council but unlike the new American president, he stacked it with mainly wealthy business leaders, and excluded labour representatives.

During tough economic times people want leaders to set aside partisan politics, replace rhetoric and confrontation with a search for common ground, and find practical solutions to move the economy forward. Obama understands this, Harper doesn’t.

Lesson #3: Values trump ideology

Obama also understands that two of the finest American (and Canadian) values are empathy (caring for one another) and shared responsibility (acting collectively on that empathy). I’m amazed at how many times Obama mentions these values in speeches.

Practically speaking, he also recognizes that a central requirement of the government, especially in desperate economic times, is to make significant new investments – even if it means running a substantial deficit – to protect vulnerable families and create jobs. This is exactly what his massive stimulus package (5% of GDP) is aimed to do.

By contrast, Harper’s instinct is to ignore our progressive values and rely on old-fashioned Conservative economic ideology. He doesn’t believe in a compassionate and responsible role for government. He loves power but hates government. He clings to the catastrophic free-market ideology that got us into this economic crisis in the first place. It’s ideology that explains why he proceeded so slowly and painfully went from being an economic crisis denier, to an avoider, and finally (on the brink of losing power) to bringing down a relatively small stimulus package (1% of GDP) that does little to invest in vulnerable families.

Our traditional values of empathy and shared responsibility translate into the principle that governments should use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. This is perhaps the most important lesson Harper needs to learn.

I don’t expect Harper ever to become a Canadian Obama. Neither his vision nor his inner core would allow that. But is it really asking too much for our prime minister to raise his game above the shabby politics of fear, partisanship and rigid ideology? At the very least his image and our country’s reputation would suffer a little less by comparison with such an inspiring new U.S. president.