Is Stephen Harper losing it?

Having grown up in a riding where Social Credit was the mainstream, I am seldom surprised by Steven Harper. Indeed, I can recall only three times.

The first was when he was reportedly seen throwing a chair across the room in anger during the leadership convention that crowned him. (I can’t recall whether it was Belinda Stronach or Peter MacKay with whom he was stewed, or someone else who wouldn’t do what he wanted).

The second time was when he reportedly saw his son off to school with a handshake. Neither of these events may indeed have happened, part instead of the Harper Legend, but if they did, they speak volumes.

If Harper indeed does pull the plug this week and forces an election, he will have surprised me again. Harper has tried to portray himself as he having the courage to face adversity; that he believes in keeping his word; that he is not afraid of the heat.

Calling an election after loudly proclaiming that a government controlling the date of an election harmed democracy; calling it before four by-elections that he has just called, before Parliament meets, before he lays out publicly what agenda of legislation he expects the Opposition will not support; even calling it before the shift hits the fan on the national economy is way out of line with the character he has worked to portray. It’s the sort of twist that ruins promising novels.

To call an election now because the leader of the Queen’s Loyal Opposition won’t be trapped into a private conversation with him is simply bizarre. If that is his idea of a trap, Mr. Harper should’ve kept his day job. If these are his trapping skills, he’d be living off berries in the bush.

No deals behind closed doors

Besides, only those who think of themselves as kings get upset when others don’t rush to their beck and call. The role of the Opposition in a Parliamentary system is to oppose, to provide thoughtful criticism and alternatives to the government of the day, not to strike deals behind closed doors.

So I thought I might help out by indicating some of the kites that won’t fly or, if you prefer American metaphor, dogs that won’t hunt as Stephen Harper contemplates his next moves.

If he decides to make the election about Senate reform, he will quickly be seen as trying to ignore real issues. Moreover, now that he has flip-flopped on Prime Ministerial power to determine the timing of elections, he’s not going to be believable on issues of further institutional reform.

If he says he needs a majority to fix the economy, he will be asked why it has gone sour so quickly under his watch. If he says that it is international forces at work over which he has no control, he will look weak. And if he really believes he has no control over the economy, why would we want helm at the helm in troubled waters?

Remember that the international forces at work harming the world economy are his Republican mentors in the Bush/Cheney White House. If Americans are sick to death with these polices and with the havoc they’ve wrought, why would Canadians want them adopted here?

I’ve argued before that the dysfunctional Parliament line won’t fly. Within hours of attaining another Conservative minority, the hounds on the ethics committee would be on his government’s trail again, pretty sure they smell something, neither hedgehog nor fox.

So what’s it going to be: a more robust military, while we can’t seem to buy coast guard ships that would address our real enemies; promising to have the military lead the parade into the Olympic arena in 2010; featuring the Harris Common Sense Revolution crew from Ontario, who are his biggest problem in Ontario; more cuts to the Arts; more punishment for wrong-doers while keeping guns too readily available for them?

I just don’t see where the rush is, what the winning conditions are. Is the bad news coming down the pike much worse than we anticipate already?

Or is he just tired of folks not doing what he wants them to? If so, we should beware of flying chairs.