The question posed at the halfway mark of the French debate was a simple one. Say something nice about the person to your left.
The crew at Maclean's were united in their mockery:
8:56 PM Andrew Coyne - When do they start passing the orange without using their hands?
8:56 PM Paul Wells - Next question: Say something libelous about the person to your right.
8:56 PM Martin Patriquin - Jesus, what the hell is this? Can they just hug it out and be done with it?
8:57 PM Kady O’Malley - Kady O’Malley - Aw, poor Jack Layton. I don’t think this is the night when you want the Prime Minister forced to say nice things about you.
8:58 PM Chris Selley - A good father! HA!
8:58 PM Martin Patriquin - This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pointless.
No, this wasn't pointless. It is a test of the ability of the leaders to compartmentalize. Stephen Harper was the only one who passed the test.
The best way to understand to examine the answers.
Gilles Duceppe on Elizabeth May: She wants to stop Stephen Harper as much as he does.
Jack Layton on Stephane Dion: He's an honest guy attached to a crappy party that failed in 13 years in power.
Stephane Dion on Gilles Duceppe: He's sincere but the Liberals are the only true progressive choice for parties.
Elizabeth May on Stephen Harper: He has nice kids but he's a dangerous man in the face of the climate crisis.
Stephen Harper on Jack Layton: He's honest and he works hard, and helped a lot with the Quebec resolution and the residential school apology.
See what I mean?
Everyone used this simply question -- say something nice about the person to your left -- to say something nasty or promote themselves.
Everyone, that is, except Stephen Harper. He didn't trash Jack Layton's policies. He listed two of his government's successes, but only in the context of sharing some of the credit with Jack Layton.
Why does this matter? Because it shows that Stephen Harper can turn it off. He can compartmentalize. He can look at Jack Layton, a take a measure of the man without necessarily looking for a political opening.
That's a healthy sign. As for the others, everything they touch turns into a cheap political commercial. Elizabeth May was clearly the worst, but the others were little better.
There is something significant in that ability to stop being a politician and turn into a normal guy. I think it is that I trust Stephen Harper to be the least consumed with ideas of power. The others, given a chance to just be normal folks, couldn't pull it off. The kept on being partisan politicians. Do you think people like that would ever give up political power willingly?
But when Stephen Harper was asked to say something nice about a politician he disagreed with, he said something nice. When the time comes, Stephen Harper will likely give up the reins of power with little fuss or fanfare.
I get the feeling Stephen Harper knows there's a lot more to life than politics. I find that very reassuring in a politician.
But then I seem to be the only one who gets it, so maybe I'm wrong.
