Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, and warm and fuzzy personalities

Famed American blogger, Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit), has often propounded the Theory of Presidential Opposites, a theory that he credits to his daughter (the Insta-daughter). It holds that:

“Each President is chosen to be the opposite of his predecessor.”

The Insta-daughter proposed the theory to explain Barack Obama’s rise. Obama is the cool, eloquent, ivory tower intellectual who succeeded the tongue-tied, ‘smoke ‘em out’ gunslinger with the Texas twang, George W Bush.

The main idea is that people get fed up with their leader’s personality type. Their quirks and idiosyncrasies start to grate on everybody’s nerves after a while. Because of this, the voters become susceptible to the charms of somebody possessing an opposite personality-type.

For instance, sunny, optimistic Ronald Reagan replaced “there’s a malaise in America” Jimmy Carter, who wore a sweater in the White House because he kept the thermostat low to fight the ‘energy crisis’; the hip baby boomer with a sax, Bill Clinton, replaced the grumpy Greatest Generation father-figure George H W Bush; etc.

I think there is something to this theory, and I think it partially explains Canada’s choice in the recent Federal Election. After being in power for nine years, every Canadian knew Stephen Harper’s personality flaws. He is a control freak, and he is ice cold – as Mark Steyn pointed out in a column entitled Cold Fish in an Indian Summer (where he quoted yours’ truly extensively). Mr. Personality he ain’t. Whatever Justin Trudeau is, nobody can accuse him of being an unfeeling technocrat. He is warm and fuzzy all over – and with great hair.

If this theory is true, then it would be a mistake for the Conservatives to select a conservative version of Justin Trudeau to lead them – somebody who would give Conservatism a great big happy face, while also injecting some sex appeal. Instead, they should pick his polar opposite, somebody who could highlight Trudeau’s faults, which are already manifest: he is a shallow, glib dilettante, who doesn’t think through his actions and who doesn’t have an executive bone in his body.

The next Conservative leader ideally should be serious alpha leader - but also be the people-person that Harper clearly isn’t. 

Comments

[Martin]

The only leader the Conservatives needs is one that can:
A) Learn to pick a proper cabinet that isn't full of criminals
B)Has the gonads to actually fire those in his party whom step out of line
C) Knows how to actually manage finances, because Harper in his infinite wisdom could not manage his own by nearly bankrupting his party (which had millions).

[james]

Whoever is chosen has to be prepared for the onslaught right away. I'm thinking another outsider would be best here. Definitely not a former cabinet minister. Anyone who was part of the cabinet will be attacked as being the same old same old.

[johnt]

Martin:
A)What criminals were in Harper's cabinet? Seriously, name them. Del Mastro? I don't know that he was ever in cabinet. He might have been.

b) He fired a few. If he had fired even more it would have been another example of Harper's "iron-rule.

c) See discussion in the comments on the previous column. All parties are out of money after an election.

James: The leader that best fits your criteria is Brad Wall.

[Autoguy]

I would support Brad Wall; he is a good man.

[WiseGuy]

Since we are going to a family inheritance type of system, like the U.S. has with it's Bush or Clinton Royal lines, I suggest we choose Ben Mulroney for leader.

[Autoguy]

Ben has charisma. I want experience. Still, it was worth a good chuckle...