I find the combination very surreal -- so much so, it's impossible for me to imagine what they'd ever find to talk about. 

The contrast between the two at policy level is not so great as one might expect. They certainly are worlds apart in style. But these things are not what dictate relationships between two national leaders. The question are what does Obama have that Harper wants and what does Harper have that Obama wants? I'm not sure anybody - including the two leaders -knows that yet.

Obama might need Canada in Afghanistan. But Harper, like everybody else, has given up on Afghanistan. I can't see him changing his mind without some strong incentive.

Harper needs the US for a market - maybe. But the sharp decline of US buying power may well force Harper to look elsewhere. He may even decide that a free trade deal with china might make more sense than one with the US.

Obama might well retreat into some form of protectionism. When you have a major employer like GM hitting the wall, protectionism can look good. Or maybe he might want the joint protectionism of a north american market - NAFTA with an anti-world twist.

Whatever the case, don't waste time speculating on their personalities. these matters are usually determined entirely by self interest on each side.

graeme

it will be interesting... next to bush, harper looked like a friggin' genius.

next to obama, he will probably look like a tired mediocre man.

Obama soon won't have to deal with him.  Next election, Harper is done.

You have no idea how much I want to believe that. 

Unfortunately, I realized in the last election that I live in a tiny bleeding heart liberal capsule in a vast country of "working people" (like I'm not?) who want to get tough on crime and quit giving away our money to whiners, welfare bums and to queers who violate God's Law and steal the sanctity of marriage.  And to give the money to the corporations to keep their truck plants cranking out big ones and oil companies.

Oh Canada.

I actually believe they will get along well.

Both are similar in age and intellegence.

Both will be leaders juggling the demands of young families with intense scrutiny.

Both are conservative  ( the Democrats in the USA are not liberal by Canadian standards)

I expect Obama will continue his protectionist stand however, they will continue to need Canada for raw materials and so protectionism can only be taken so far.

The Us needs Canada and we need them.

there's no doubt Harper desperately needs obama. Canadian business leaders have made it clear they want Harper to make nice to American presidents whatever the price. They must have free trade because the Canadian market is too small for them.

Similarly, the Canadian oil industry has surely told Harper to get on his horse and make sure Obama does nothing bad about the tar sands.

Those, I should think, will be Harper's priorities. He might go for protectionism if it's protection of all American and Canadian production together against foreign competition.

Obama doesn't need Canada as much as Canada needs him. After all, it's not as if Canadian exports have stunning markets overseas. They might develop some. but we're not there yet. So what does he need us for?

He is going to desperately need diplomatic and military support for his war in Afghanistan. He will put pressure on Harper to continue our combat role. Or, he may be looking for help in other areas where he might have trouble. Latin American springs to mind. Obama remains committed to military solutions just as bush was and, like bush, he doesn't have the human resources he needs for his wars.

As for both having families, etc, forget it. Diplomacy doesn't work on that.

graeme

I wasn't meaning the family thing would have anything to do with diplomacy.  But it could help build a friendship.  Wives and children of similar ages seems detined to result in some common ground.

that can happen - and you're right. The two of them are more alike than different. The major difference is Obama's superior political skills.

graeme

 Either way, I would like to be a fly on the wall for that one.

Oh wow, how true your words are! I was shocked Canadians voted Harper back in, but they seem to be able to forgive him of almost anything (oddly enough.) It's scary, kind of.  However, I do think that having a Democrat in power south of the 49th will seriously decrease Harper's credibility. He'll start to look tired and old, and his policies will be shown for what they really are: ineffective, irrelevant, and vestigial of a less tolerant past. The Tories are done. They're just to arrogant to realize it.

Ninja Faery,  You do injustice to many thoughtful,  intelligent people who voted Conservative in the last election.  And I'm sure there are some conservative GLBTTQ2 people who would be hurt by your homophobic portrayal of them.    I won't trot out all the hackneyed cliches people use to decribe liberal thinkers, because that type of stereotyping does nothing to promote dialogue.

And speaking of dialogue, while Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative party represent the right,  Conservatives here in Canada remain far more liberal than the Democrats about to take power in Washington.  Do you think Mr. Obama will be able to push through universal health care in this term?  I pray that he can, but  reality points the other way.

well, the tough on crime, tough on welfare, touch on gays etc. positions are pretty all to be found in t he conwervative party rather than the others. So conservative thinkers, if such they are, have to suffer for the company they keep.

graeme

They will find a way to work together, hopefully accomplish something where Canadian and American interests converge where they don't--agree to disagree.

As a Canadian, my only hope is that my Prime Minister strongly defends Canadian values and interests, instead of just blindly supporting American policies, in the name of maintaining " a special relationship" that too often one sided.

It needs to be made clear to the American government that we will defend our interests and support them in the world (we share most of our values with them) when their cause is just.

Harper/Obama is a new chapter in the relationship and we will wait to see what happens

I feel I have to point out that the conservative actually lost last election ninjafaery.  Let's look at this objectively:

* Harper started to attack Dion almost immediately after Dion became leader of his party.  He basically campaigned against Dion for over a year.

* Dion didn't have the big personality that is, sadly, now part of politics in Canada.

* The liberals were in a shambles, probably the worst they have been in their history.

* The Conservatives were already technically in power

All this should have meant that running a duck (the actual bird) the Conservatives should have taken a majority.  They did not.

Before the election, the Conservatives were a minority, Liberals were offical opposition, Bloc was third, NDP was fourth, and Green was fifth.  After the election, Conservatives were a minority, Liberals were opposition, Bloc was third, NDP was fouth, and Greens were fifth.  However, two important things changed:

* The conservatives made a major mistake that alienated Quebec, which before the election they had been apparently ready to make gains in.

* The Liberals can now safely sweep Dion aside, putting in a better challanger against Harper. 

Now, given that Dion could have been beat by a duck and Harper couldn't beat him, what do you think will happen when Harper is running against a much stronger opponenent. 

If this particular Conservative party was ever going to take a majority in Canada, it would have happened last election.  They did not.  Thus, they will not. They're done.

Dave Henderson said,

"Conservatives here in Canada remain far more liberal than the Democrats about to take power in Washington.  Do you think Mr. Obama will be able to push through universal health care in this term?  I pray that he can, but  reality points the other way."

On that point we are in complete agreement.

As for the rest, that's the rant that I can allow myself for having picked up a portion of that 200 million dollar tab it cost for that display of an "election" --  at a time when we could have used those dollars more so much more productively.    Conservatives don't actually "conserve", it seems.  As Frommian mentioned, however, it did provide us with a better idea of how  the parties are positioned.  

So yeah, when you factor in the idea that US democrats are not as different from Can. Conservatives, Obama and Bush probably aren't that far apart ideologically, as mentioned.

I don't think there's a huge economic difference between Obama and Harper (or for hat matter, Obam and anybody else in either American party). But Harper could scarcely be called more liberal than American democrats. it's no secret he would like to see an end to medicare - and if we don't see moves in that direction in the next year or so, I'll be surprised.

graeme

 Folks, don't forget that the Canadian banks are the envy of the world right now as a result of the Conservative Party's conservative financial management of the economy.  The world summit agknowledged that.

well, harper had to step in last year and tell the canadian banks to get their loans in line with their liquid assets.  had he not done that, we would have plummeted in the same fashion.

that is not something that you would normally see a conservative government do.  so i'd say that it is not the 'conservative management of the economy'... for the government to step in and dictate and enforce rules for the private sector is far from conservative, imho.

 I don't expect to see anything very useful. Capitalism as we have known it is broken. it's been broken for a long time. We've just now been socked hard enough to notice it.

But the people in charge of things are the same ones who have a stake in maintaining the old capitalism since they are the few who have done well out of it. So they're going to believe it's basically sound, and just needs bandaids. Harper is very much in that category. He was a strong and even extreme advocate of all the faults that caused this crisis. Far from wisely managing the banks, he inherited a system that was put in place long ago. Nothing he ever said favour regulation of banks or anything else.

When bush recognized, very late and just recently, some need to regulate banking, he stressed that this is not bigger government. Like hell it isn't. Of course it is. if government steps in to regulate business, of course it's bigger. But Bush cannot admit that, because to admit it would be to admit that all the gospel of free enterprise is wrong.

There is a huge mythology of free enterprise that stands in the way of the changes we need. I cannot see either obama or Harper breaking away from that mythology.

graeme

i'm thinking that you may see a change in that mentality, graeme... after the true scope and magnitude of this collapse begins to be felt, i don't think that stricter monitoring and regulation from the government will be all that hard a sell to the public at large.  right now, we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg on the impact this collapse is going to have on the average registered voter.

well, we didn't see that last time around. Capitalism survived the 1930s with very few controls imposed. And, in the US and Canada, the fashion of the last 30 years and more, with huge support from the press and from "think tanks' was to get to ger rid of even those.

You have a congress made up largely of millionaires (it actually is) who are heavily financed by the super wealthy. You have news media owned by the super wealthy.  check the national post lately. Seen any damning  criticisms of capitalism there?  See any call for government to do anything but give money to rich people?

graeme

Trishcuit, It's not the Conservative's financial management that saved the Canadian banks but the regulations and oversight imposed by previous administrations. The banking crisis was mainly caused by greed, misrepresentation, and foolishness. Tighter regulations would have averted the whole crisis.

Also Canada's economy is primarily resource based. These economies as a group were less affected by the crisis.

indeed. 

For those who claim that the American Democrats are ideologically further "right" than the Canadian Conservative party, that is not as true as it used to be. We don't have a Progressive Conservative Party anymore. For one example, Obama has spoken out in favour of socialised health care, and Harper has suggested that our ban on privatised health care is one of Canada's most backward policies.

But I imagine the two leaders will get along just fine. I don't imagine they'll be good buddies like Clinton and Chretien, however.

And the CCP had very little to do with the Canadian banks being so resiliant. Chretien was opposed to large bank mergers with insurance companies. Trudeau insisted on domestic investments. The CCP were unable to act on easing the Liberals' sound fiscal policies - if they had, we would now be in the same precarious economic state as the Americans. They've only been in power since 2006, don't forget. They certainly haven't made any radical changes to the way banks operate.

Not that the Liberals were champions of social welfare. They restructure EI to the point that only 45% of the people who previously qualified could use it. They reduced unemployment benefits, shortened the maximum duration, increased the qualifications, and they lowered the maximum benefit. And this was Canada's left/centrist party.

Now - what do you think a right-wing majority would do?