I know zoo just posted an article but this one is worth the read, not like zoo's isnt
This is something I never thought of and actually makes pretty good sense, maybe the liberals could pick up on this as it is legitamate and really makes a good case.
On experience, Harper comes up short
National Post
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Page: A18
Section: Editorials
Byline: Andrew Cohen
Source: Ottawa Citizen
It's time to think of Stephen Harper as prime minister of Canada. It's
time to ask what he has done in life outside and inside politics as he
asks to lead one of the world's biggest, richest and most complex
countries.
On the face of it, he has done little. Mr. Harper would take office with
the thinnest mix of political, professional and managerial experience of
any prime minister since Joe Clark. Looking back farther, it is hard to
find a prime minister of either party elected in the last century as
inexperienced as Mr. Harper.
What is experience? Call it a training in the professions, such as law
or medicine; a career as a soldier, entrepreneur, manager or innovator;
a background in labour, philanthropy or advocacy as a builder or
administrator; a body of work as a scholar, writer or journalist. In
measuring experience, consider someone who has travelled widely, created
something or overcome adversity. By all these measures, Mr. Harper comes
up short.
Mr. Harper is a professional politician. He became leader of the
Canadian Alliance in 2002, orchestrated the party's merger with the
Progressive Conservatives in 2003 and became leader of the Conservatives
in 2004. He did all this with agility and acumen, which he is bringing
to his election campaign.
The trouble is that even here, as a politician, Mr. Harper is not a
seasoned veteran. His political experience over his 46 years is not long
or broad enough to qualify as preparation for the leadership of a G-8
country.
Mr. Harper was elected to Parliament in 1993. He resigned in 1997 and
returned in 2003. All told, he has held office for about seven years,
less than four of them as leader. He has never served in any Cabinet.
The brevity of his time in office -- about the same length as Mr.
Clark's when he became prime minister -- wouldn't matter so much if Mr.
Harper had a varied, interesting or substantial career before elective
politics. He didn't.
Mr. Harper comes from a middle class family in Toronto; he didn't have
to struggle. He earned a Master's in economics from the University of
Calgary. Later he became a lecturer and commentator.
His real work was as a party apparatchik, toiling in the vineyards of
conservatism. He was one of the founders of the Reform Party, and for
years was an assistant and speech-writer on Parliament Hill. He was
known as a policy wonk, but there is no book or idea of note associated
with him.
His most prominent job outside politics was running the National
Citizens Coalition, a conservative lobby. He was president from 1998 to
2002. It reportedly has a membership of 40,000, an annual budget of
$2.8-million and a small staff. It isn't General Motors.
Now, compare Mr. Harper's credentials to prime ministers of the last
century. Paul Martin was a lawyer, an industrialist and finance
minister. Jean Chretien was one of 19 children in a working class
family, became a lawyer and held every major position in Cabinet.
Brian Mulroney also came from humble beginnings; he practised law and
ran the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Pierre Trudeau was a lawyer,
professor and reformist justice minister. Lester Pearson was a
professor, diplomat, foreign minister and Nobel Laureate.
John Diefenbaker was a self-made criminal lawyer. Louis St. Laurent was
a lawyer, professor and senior minister. Mackenzie King was an author,
labour conciliator and civil servant. Richard Bennett was a teacher,
lawyer, businessman and minister.
Robert Borden was a lawyer and teacher. Arthur Meighen was a teacher,
lawyer and minister. Wilfrid Laurier was a journalist and lawyer.
Does this record of professional and political experience matter?
Absolutely. Joe Clark stumbled badly during his nine-month interregnum.
George W. Bush (who had the thinnest resume of any president in memory)
is in trouble in Iraq because he didn't ask the right questions.
Experience matters here and now because Mr. Harper would lead a
government with only a few ministers who have served in provincial
Cabinets and none who have served in Ottawa. That hasn't happened in
memory, if ever.
No, experience doesn't guarantee success. In the past, however,
Canadians have demanded it of their leaders, as they have demanded
personal achievement or a compelling story or sense of excellence.
Stephen Harper offers many things, including intelligence, principle and
ideology. He does not offer experience.
