Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption

by Stephen J. Harper

The world is in flux. Disruptive technologies, ideas, and politicians are challenging business models, norms, and political conventions everywhere. How we, as leaders in business and politics, choose to respond matters greatly. Some voices refuse to concede the need for any change, while others advocate for radical realignment. But neither of these positions can sustainably address the legitimate concerns of disaffected citizens.

Right Here, Right Now sets out a forward-looking vision by analyzing how economic, social, and public policy trends have affected our economies, communities, and governments.

Mr. Harper contends that Donald Trump's surprise election victory and governing agenda clearly signal that political, economic, and social institutions must be more responsive to legitimate concerns about market policies, trade, globalization, and immigration.

Urging readers to look past questions of style and gravitas, Mr. Harper thoughtfully examines the substantive underpinnings of how and why Donald Trump was able to succeed Barack Obama as President of the United States, and how these forces are manifesting themselves in several other western democracies.

Analyzing international trade, market regulation, immigration, technology, and the role of government in the digital economy, Harper lays out the case for pragmatic conservative leadership as a proven solution to the uncertainty and risk that businesses and governments face today.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Canada, Economics, Leadership, Biography, Political Science

227 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 9, 2018

About the author

Stephen Harper is retired politician who served as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada for nearly a decade, from 2006 to 2015. First elected to the House of Commons of Canada in 1993, he became became the first leader of the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada in 2004. Harper is an economist and entrepreneur who has served as the leader of the International Democrat Union since February 2018.

Reviews

[Mark Wang · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good explanation and defense of populism, coming from a conservative politician who essentially supports trump and operated on "Canada First" for the duration of his leadership.

Harper has experience as a head of state. He’s an economist, and a pragmatist.

Despite the unfortunate title choice and cover design for the book itself (maybe that explains why there are no reviews of it almost a week after publication - people can't even find it easily on Google), the contents are highly nutritious. It is essential reading precisely for those who are most baffled by Trump. This book definitely helped me understand the post 2016 world.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption, by Stephen Harper, is a book that looks at current trends in global politics and tries to adapt them to traditional conservative ideology. This is the ideology of Reagan and Thatcher, not necessarily Trump or May, although Harper talks about these. To elaborate, Stephen Harper is the former Prime Minister of Canada, and long time leader of Canada's Progressive Conservative Party. As a Canadian, I remember the Harper era as a time of budget cuts, the muzzling of non-partisan academic advisers, more centralized executive power, and a foreign policy that I personally (and many other Canadian's certainly) did not agree with. Harper ended his tenure as Prime Minister (and so far, his political career) losing out in a landslide to current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Harper's election campaign seemed to be trying to tap into the growing populist movement elsewhere - he talked about a "cultural hotline" to report (ie. tattle) on people who did were not adhering to Canadian cultural norms (an abstract idea anyway, for a non-ethno state). So in short, I am no Stephen Harper fan, nor did I ever vote for him.

Even so, this is an interesting perspective. Stephen Harper began his political career in the Reform Party - a self described populist party that eventually merged with the Conservative Party of Canada to form the new Progressive Conservative Party. He is a traditional conservative to be sure, but has a stated respect for Populism and Nationalism - so long as these ideals are well thought out and generally not harmful to others. He also hates the left, and seems to see little difference between Liberals, Centre Lefts, Socialists and Communists. This book touches on a number of topics, including populism, nationalism, globalization, trade and economics, immigration and conservative values. Harper takes a middle road approach, and tries to unite the popular aspect of populism, with the incrementalism that he used to brand his own conservative ideology. He does not, however, believe that Trump, for example, or other rabid populists have it right. Just that their method of branding, and some of their attention to "Somewheres" (Harper's term for white, lower/middle class, rural voters) and their needs.

To be frank, this was a challenging read. Many of Harper's reform ideas for various policies seem interesting in some respects. He does not disparage globalization or privatization, nor does he necessarily believe in a Libertarian style governance. Instead he talks about smart administration, balanced budgets, cautious and skills based immigration, and the prioritization of economic growth and good employment, and smart and potentially progressive taxation. Some of these concepts I can get behind in some fashion. However, his complete disregard for social policy initiatives, his absolute disrespect for anyone Left of Right, and his advocacy for Canadian culture (hockey, maple syrup etc.) that is bland and corporate, is something I can not get behind. He also has very little to say about environmental concerns (although he does not say nothing). Many of the chapters in this book challenged my viewpoints, and certainly some of his points I vehemently disagree with. Even so, there are interesting points in this book. Harper talks about his changing viewpoints, and how he has begun to disagree with Libertarians, corporate conservatives, and more extreme nationalists. He talks about the tactics behind tapping into populist trends - something all sides of the political spectrum are looking at closely. This book is largely about how the Right can capture the energy of populist movements, and tap into the often chaotic and unobtainable needs of a populist party. Marry this with smart (in Harper's eyes) policy and you have a mixture for renewed Conservative power, not just in Canada, but globally. Certainly this is not something I would wish to see, but it is interesting to see the nuances of the authors viewpoints and ideas, now that he is not beholden to any political party and its whips.

All in all, a controversial read for me, but certainly not a bad one. As someone who believes strongly in the benefits of both "left wing" policies, and smart policies based on the needs of individuals, as well as research by impartial experts, there are interesting points in this book, and it is somewhat heartening to see Harper not bandwagoning with the more extreme elements of the current right wing shift globally. Even so, there are many points in this book I heavily disagree with. Does this mean it is a bad read? Certainly not, it is always important to challenge ones viewpoints. Does this mean I would recommend the book? Possibly. I would certainly say that any Canadian reader interested in Canada's political climate should read it, both for perspective and to see a side of the spectrum in action. It may also be of interest to international readers, as Harper discusses global trends and his own analysis of them. In short, a controversial book that has some good points, some terrifying points, and is quite relevant to the current political climate.

[Abigale Miller · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you come to this book expecting to like it or hate it, you'll get what you're looking for. If you hope to learn something, I expect you'll feel frustrated.
I came to this book without really an expectation of whether I would like it, or agree with it, or not. So I was ready to learn something, but was also ready to think critically about what was there.
I found this to be a train of thought without much in the way of solid structure behind the arguments. I found the book lacked a lot of reasoning and support for the arguments and theories put forward.
I found it pretty common to read a section with a thought or argument, followed by a sentence like "... and the Asian financial crisis is a good example of this". And I found myself thinking, "Why? What about the Asian financial crisis? How does this relate to the content of this book?" Mr Harper seemed to assume that the readers would make the same assumptions and conclusions he made, without having to explain himself, and I found that confusing and unhelpful.

Mr Harper talks a lot about "the left" and "modern-left liberals" and "liberals". He seems to use the terms interchangeably but doesn't define them, so it isn't clear who he considers to be in that group. I can only assume he means anyone who's not a conservative, but that's a pretty big group. He makes some very broad generalizations of that group, including calling them intellectually adolescent and undercover neo-communists. He doesn't seem to make any effort to understand the positions or motivations of "modern-left liberals" despite spending a lot of time arguing that the equivalent group on the right needs to be carefully listened to and understood to figure out their motivations. I can only conclude that he's only looking for and presenting arguments and thoughts that support what he already thinks, and that's not a very interesting or helpful book to me.

[Tormod · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are 3 problems when a political leader writes a postscript to his or her career: self-justification; self-congratulation; revisionism. Harper's book is guilty on all counts. Harper's arguments feed off a generally low level of knowledge among the populace about American political history, Canadian political history and general world history. Any reasonable level of knowledge in these areas and one would quickly see the massaging of the "truth", the selectivity of facts (known as "cherry-picking") and the elimination of any counter arguments.

The problem with hard right conservatives is that their world is only black and white. A good book on history/politics would address counter arguments before presenting the author's final thesis. Not possible for a hard-right conservative. Me right, you wrong. Conservative good, liberal bad. This kind of divisiveness and animosity is, in part, what got the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper turfed from office in 2016 and has given him the time to write this polemic.

The last chapter on business is the most meaningful chapter in the book and worthy of a read. The sections on Populism, Globalization and Immigration suffer from the 3 mortal postscript sins. Harper portrays Trump's win as a simple rising up of people against the hated liberal elite. He fails to mention that this antipathy toward Washington and "elites" has been a feature of American politics for 250 years and was a basic cause of the American Civil War and the rise of numerous third party candidates. Also, he makes no mention of more complex factors surrounding Trump's Electoral College win such as a historic racism and a continuing male dominated society in the U.S. If the "facts" don't fit the hard-right narrative, they get buried.

Harper moves from populism to globalization and the global elites. Globalization has been here for thousands of years since the first valley farmer of Mesopotamia traded grain with an upland goat herder. Globalization was defined only by a person's concept of the world, as defined by technology.
Technology has made us now into a global community. The challenge has become one of economic Darwinism i.e. adapt or die. Just ask the coal areas of Britain, or the textile mills of Lancashire and New England. Trump (Harper's semi-hero) promises to restore the coal industry and the iron and steel manufacturing of the Rust Belt. That is the hard-right way as espoused by Trump and other conservatives. Promise to deliver a world that never was and never will be. Harper concedes that nationalism and globalism are not exclusive. That I agree with. But, for those who do not share the hard-right view, globalism is not a pejorative term. It is a reality and the survivors and thrivers are those who create and adapt (see post-WW2 Japan). If trade relations go bad (e.g China and the world in Harper's view), keep in mind that a trade agreement is manufactured by two parties. It is not unilateral. A solution lies in the domestic market but the loyalty is to price from wherever. That is Harper's all-important market speaking. And for Harper to single out China for unfair trade practices, and make no mention of the United States, is rather rich to us Canadians who have experienced the same treatment many times at the hands of the U.S.

Immigration is a most contentious current issue. I agree with Harper that an orderly immigration process is necessary. But, refugees need to be a part of an orderly immigration process and not on the basis of race or religion as defining criteria. The section on immigration is the closest Harper comes to the dog whistling of Trump. Reading between the lines the hard right has a very narrow view of who is desirable and who is not. Harper's government took a rigid, exclusivist position that did not reflect the general attitude of Canadians and, again, that is why he has the time to write this book.

As a true red conservative Harper has to bow before the anointed father of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan. All aspiring "conservatives" must pay obeisance in order to be accepted into the fold. Reagan has taken on a mythological aspect to North American conservatives. However, what you seldom hear is the label that was hung on Reagan's years in the White House, "The Age of Greed". The question to ask is why the majority of years after Reagan were Democrats in the White House. A similar question exists for Canada. Why is it the Liberals who have assumed the title of the natural governing party of Canada and not the conservative party in its varied forms. If you read
Harper's book with some knowledge of political history and a filter of critical objectivity, I think you will find some answer. Good luck!

[Jon Mellberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Great book; really insightful. Short and to the point as well. Harper’s insight into American politics is impressive, but perhaps equally as much is his grasp of issues across the globe and the myriad ways for conservatives to be more effective and useful in this day and age. I will definitely be reading this one again, if not several times more!

PS- I listened to this on Audible, read by the author. Harper’s performance matches his great writing.

[Robert Griffiths · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book was interesting. I found it had some good insights into the political landscape of today.

My problem is that he often fell into the same patterns that he accuses the "left" of being in. He says that you cannot paint all conservatives with the same brush, and that the right is a spectrum. . .then goes on the use broad, sweeping claims that treats the left as being monolithic.

[Gerj · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was the first work of Stephen Harper's I ever read. His writing reminded me of how he often spoke as Prime Minister: accessible, staid language, overlayed on a spiritedly partisan worldview.

The book's premise is relatively simple, and, for all its flaws, fairly insightful: the divisions of our current political moment can often be traced back to those who share an expansive, cosmopolitan politics that is less and less rooted in immediate surrounds ("Anywheres"); and those who have a more locally rooted, immanent series of political concerns that are and will remain tied to a specific locale, context, and identity ("Somewheres").

Harper's contention is that these two camps have only grown more and more separated over time, and the lack of access that many elites have to the Somewheres made them utterly unprepared, both epistemically and practically, for the popularity and subsequent election of populists like Donald Trump.

That insight, underlaid by some of Harper's personal experience as Prime Minister, is reasonably well expressed. As is his historical contention that this moment of populism is in line with prior movements -- like Free Silver, and so on -- that have come before it.

After this, however, Harper's partisan gloves come off. As he discusses the three overarching issues he thinks have become flashpoints for Somewheres and Anywheres, nationalism, trade, and immigration, his partisanship continually flows through. His advice for conservatives feels meaningful, and as he often addresses his book to that audience, probably is useful. He frequently counsels restraint and a nuanced approach to markets and taxation policy that tries to address the concerns of Somewheres who may be on the losing side of some issues. For example, he belives that trade adjustment programs are important and should have been more substantially invested in as globalization has taken off.

But almost immediately after describing an issue in general terms, or after offering conservatives specific advice, he will launch into a diatribe about the dangers of socialism and left-extremism in almost comically vague and overarching terms. My take-away from each of the sections, particularly on free-trade, is that these issue-areas are well-handled by conservatives and poorly by anyone else. Little evidence or commentary is offered about the specific ways in which liberals and leftists (which he amusingly lumps together most of the time) have failed on these issues. In fact, his descruptions of a conservative approach is simply that they are more "careful," or "deliberate" in the way that they do things, rather than slapdash and unthinking like liberals/leftists. No further explanation is needed. That he would see Jeremy Corbyn, as he often says, as more dangerous than Donald Trump is telling. Any initial allowances of Trump "maybe goes a little too far" almost inevitably turns into a deeper and more pointed criticism of his political opponents as being still-worse.

All-in-all, Harper's read on the political landscape is interesting, and his reflections on misses and opportunities for his political movement feel nuanced and likely useful, but that he cannot see anyone of an alternate viewpoint as having validity at any point really canned what had hoped might be a more statesmanlike, politically detached story.

It's a short, readable book (I think I closed it in abour 3-hours) and interesting to see into the mind of one of Canada's most eminent political strategists. Grab it from the library and take some notes; you probably only need to skim it once.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a relatively short book written last year by a former Canadian PM who among other things managed his country through some major free trade pacts, a sensible immigration policy and a very balanced (much more than the US) response to the banking crisis in the middle of the last decade.

He lays out a case for what he calls populist conservatism. He also explains how Trump (whether you like him or not) figured out what was driving a large group of disaffected voters. That portion is worth the price of the book. He is equally critical of the elites from both sides of the political spectrum. He contrasts the aspirations of the "anywheres" with the "somewheres" - people who increasingly have little or no attraction to national borders and those who are mostly place bound. He clearly does not believe that those voters are deplorables but he also recognizes that the elites on the right (while not using the term have similar contempt for those voters). I think he describes why the uncertainty in most G7 countries is increasing - Brexit and the rise of nationalist parties in many of the EU countries.

He describes both the history of US immigration policy and some possible changes which could help win the support from the people whose jobs are being affected by massive immigration of unskilled labor. He presents some pretty reliable estimates of the net loss in wages that happen to lower skilled workers (a 10% increase in immigration results in a 2-3% loss in real wages). In the end he argues, I think correctly that immigration policy should ultimately be focused on two points - the needs of the country and the ultimate goal that immigrants should at least aspire to citizenship. He shows the very tiny proportion of all immigrants that the DACA kids (now some young adults) are.

His fundamental point is that successful political movements respond to real world concerns and not some abstract model. So deregulation, by itself, is not necessarily a good idea unless it meets long term needs of the population, But deregulation for deregulation's sake is silly. I think he is a bit off on his thoughts on tax policy (although he concedes about the need for lower rates).

Trump's SOTU had some elements of Harperesque thoughts - although it is unclear whether he has the discipline to allow the process to work through without going to tweet storms.

This is one of those books that you hope some conservatives will read and take to heart. I say conservatives because he correctly points out that the left seems inclined increasingly to adopt the wrong kind of populism which is based on socialism with all its manifest failures. Regardless, the politician which embraces Harper's methodology is likely to be successful in beginning to build a governable coalition for 2020 and beyond.

[Brahm · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is self-explanatory: this is Stephen Harper's take on Trump, Brexit, populism, and other disruptive issues of today.

I really liked this one. Harper's thesis is that "traditional" conservatives (like, he argues, many others in the political space) have become totally disconnected from the people they used to represent, stuck in dogmatism about lowering taxes, market solutions, free trade, and globalization. Of course, his conservatives didn't do that, but this disconnect between everyday people and political elites is what led to the unexpected events of 2016 (Trump, Brexit).

"Many conservatives had fallen victim to a broader market dogmatism [...] Markets had ceased being a tool to solve problems and instead were described as being a moral objective in themselves".

One bit of the book I liked is his Somewheres vs Anywheres chapter, which is available online and what made me want to check out the book in the first place.

One of Harper's main themes is that whatever government does, it has to be good for citizens (Harper is surprised any time there is resistance to this idea). He is pro-globalization (as long as it benefits Canada) and pro-immigration (as long as it benefits Canada), and pro-market (again... etc).

Harper is a smart guy, and this book lets you get inside his head. Love him or hate him, it's worth listening to what a former world leader has to say (note to self: I need more of this, from different parties, countries and viewpoints) than to get summaries and synopses in the news- as Harper writes, "traditional 'public' media is dying. As it is doing so, its worst traits are becoming exaggerated - the escalation of conflict, the sensationalizing of speculation, opinion masquerading as news".

Fast read, at just 177 pages of content. I would recommend this book widely, as it's helpful in understanding a certain worldview and mindset, which can bring a calming sensation to an increasingly polarized political space. As Sheryl Sandberg wrote in Lean In, "there is my truth, and your truth, and they are both equally true". But, if you can't handle occasional sentences like "the modern left is [...] intellectually adolescent" then skip this one.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprising Canadians even after he's left office, Stephen Harper offers, instead of a political memoir, a big think piece on the state and opportunities of conservatism today. How does it play with populism? Should it? How do conservatives offer an alternative way forward to ordinary people without giving into our lesser angels?

As its author did as Prime Minister, this is sure to attract discussion. Unlike most politicians' books, it is likely to be talked about for more than a few weeks.

[Gabrielle Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview and diagnosis of the political landscape today from someone who had a seat at the table.

[Reinhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book of the year.
Harper is a modern day Solomon.

Stephen Harper lay out the causes behind the rise of populism in the US and Europe. The fundamental factor is the split between the ‘Anywheres,’ urbanites who can live and work in New York or Singapore and the ‘Somewheres’ who live and work in a specific locale. This is a new spectrum from right and left divide. The Anywheres support globalization, open borders, unfettered trade, and cultural relativism. The Somewheres attend local schools, churches, and work at local business, support traditional culture and are very patriotic.

The failed immigration policy, especially related to the 1965 immigration Act in the US, is a key price of the discontent of the Somewheres. For the Anywheres, more cheap labor raises their standard of living, but for those who ‘shower after work instead of before work,’ mass, low-skill immigration has daily costs. The border must be secured.

The Somewheres also took the brunt of the cost of bad trade deals, especially with China, specifically allowing them into the WTO in 2001. Not every trade deal is good. Trade deals should not be made on theoretical ideas of what works in textbooks, rather, deals should be scrutinized for negative impacts, because there will inevitably be some.

The problems that gave rise to modern populism can’t be swept under the rug. Nor does name calling of those disatisfed with governing elite solves any problems. The root issues must be addressed. They must be addressed by principled conservatism. Not conservatism of theoretical principles, not the conservatism of the Wall Street Journal, rather, the conservatism of the people. The motto can’t always be capital gains tax cuts and free trade - the facts on the ground should impact conservative policy. This is Conservatism in its essential Burkean form. One based on tradition combined with incremental change. Revolutionary change is not conservative.

If conservatives fail to provide a workable solutions to the problems afflicting working people, socialist are waiting in the wings to appeal to the discontentment with a capitalism that works only for the global elite. That is the largest danger of the current populist uprising.

Business, like politicians and the media, is losing the trust of Main Street. A trust lost due to repeated failure of business leaders, politician and media to account for working people. They must own their mistakes and rebuild the trust of the population, not through PR, through integrity.

Elites need to recognize the benefits accrued to them by their nation and take responsibility to help build the country. Too many elites are opposed to their own home country - alienist as opposed to nationalists. Alienism is every bit as dangerous as extreme nationalism.

This work is a sage analysis of current political environment. Not only is it insightful analysis, it offers practical solutions. A real way forward. I hope it gets a wide readership.

[Adam Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many conservatives were chagrinned by the rise of Donald Trump. Many hope that things will return to the way they were before Trump, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's book Right Here, Right Now is both a sobering wake-up call and critique of conservative failures that led to Donald Trump's rise. Harper has news that there are legitimate societal issues behind Trump's rise and that until these are addressed, things will not return to any sort of normal.

Harper's criticism are most often valid and always offered in a very straightforward way. His solutions are still fairly conservative but also practical for the world that we live in as he addresses issues such as immigration and trade imbalances and provides lots of thoughtful grist for the mill. He shares how the policies he implemented in Canada differed from many conservatives in the US and how this actually led to better results in that country.

I do disagree with Harper over the 2008 bailouts. I also have mixed feelings on his efforts to redefine nationalism as a sort of benign patriotism. On one hand, it attempts to address the legitimate concerns that have led to the rise of national movement while defanging nationalism of its more base tendencies. On the other hand, it ignores the fact that most modern nationalist movements have been infused with many racist bad actors. While Harper clearly has issues with Trump and acknowledges that Trump will probably fail to all the dysfunction of his administration, he tries to avoid turning the book into a Trump critique. However, he engages in a bit of silliness when he goes to quoting the Art of the Deal as a guide to how to negotiate trade deals as an amoral tome written by Trump's ghost writer rather than a functioning philosophy for anything.

Still, Harper's book merits some thoughtful consider and raises many important issues for conservatives who want to address the issues that gave rise to Trump without indulging the cult of personality or Trump's worse instincts.

[Danny Bigioni · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book isn't about Trump. It's about what made people vote for him. PM Harper lays out the history of globalization and recognizes its winners and losers. And then talks about the banking crisis of 08. The best thing he says (which aligns with my own belief) is that theory needs to be balanced with practicality, and this applies to both sides. You can be a globalist in principle, but need to be nationalist when negotiating trade agreements. His group brought in 50-some new trade agreements and each was difficult. Every country is unique and he explains Canada's dairy system and why we wish to keep it. He also spends lots of time discussing immigration and what Canada does.

All in all, this book is not what I expected. He's well studied in economics and political history, and does a great job of explaining it. The last few chapters are what I expected--talking about political parties. It's all common sense but the US and European systems were out of whack. They weren't listening to the people and taking care of the working class. Anyway, it's a good book and relatively short.

[Huzaifa Saeed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Balanced, with some thought provoking arguments that attempts to explain the events of the last few years for politically involved individuals/professionals on all sides of the political spectrum, with the epilogue focused on how businesses can and shouldn't respond to these trends.

[Huy Dang · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed the insights of Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Whether it was about economics or the country's political institutions, I enjoyed hearing about it from him. Of course, many of his political tactics that people hated have been adopted by his predecessor.

Having said that, as much as I enjoyed reading this book, reading his opinion in a book that was 200+ pages was difficult, as the material is dry. However, as someone who enjoys the world of elected politics in Canada, I thought this book provided great insight.

He does not disparage globalization (something I'll admit I'm not fully familiar with) or privatization, nor does he believe in a Libertarian form of government (unlike someone who deserted his party in 2018 to form the People's Party of Canada).

But, a common theme of his book is arguing that typical Trump supporters are those who felt left behind due to economic changes that go beyond their control. While I can see some aspects of this being true, I do not entirely agree with this narrative.

[Russell DeLong · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Conservatism" is a tendency to preserve what we have achieved, while "progressivism" is a tendency to seek progress in things we haven't yet achieved. Harper has overloaded the word "conservative", piling into it all sorts concepts that occur to him as good or useful in politics, rather than just recognizing that he's describing his political philosophy which is only partly marked by the concept of conservatism.

To Harper, conservatism is "an intellectual framework that draws on human experience", which "is empirical", is "the opposite of dogmatism" and includes a "predisposition to freedom". None of these things are true analytically, where he hasn't properly thought through and abstracted these concepts from each other to frame them properly in language.

I'll think more on his anywheres/somewheres distinction and may update this with some thoughts on that later.

[William-Anthony Marchetti-Berry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good explanation of populism (Trump, Brexit, gilets jaunes, etc…), from our former conservative PM. It’s a very good book, that touches on policies that need to be implemented in order to answer the populist movement of recent years. Harper argues that conservatives are more & more disconnected from the people they used to represent (ie. working class). The disconnect between everyday people & the elites is on the rise, & the conservatives obsession with lowering taxes & free trade is not helping out everyday people. Conservatives need to implemented policies that will benefit everyone, in order to answer the concerns of everyday people, or else, the rise of populism will only continue to exacerbate & could lead to nasty things.

[Marsha · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intelligent and cool-headed discussion on how we ended up with such polarized politics and populism on both the left and the right. His book is not focused on Canada, but looks broadly at world examples of disruptive election results, particularly in the US. He is not a fan of Trump, but does a brilliant job of dissecting his appeal. A must read for anyone who is sincerely interested in understanding how we got to this state and how we can get off the path we're on.

[no · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trudeau turned out to be Groucho Marx and we suffer for it.

[derek s macdonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing

Didn't know how smart and caring Mr Harper was. I should have appreciated him more when we had him. People need to read this book. It is a handbook for success.

[Brandon Wallace · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this book former Prime Minister Harper attempts to understand the (circa 2018) rise of populism, and Trump in particular, and offer ways in which principled conservatism could better respond to grievances.

I read this book not as a supporter of former Prime Minister Harper, but as one who believes in the value in thoughtfully engaging with different perspectives. There is much to appreciate about his analysis, especially of globalization, and immigration.

But this reader cannot abide by the constant devolution into partisan dribble and name-calling. In a nutshell, Harper presents a strawman of the "left," and falls clearly into a slippery slope fallacy. While the book is moderately insightful in its diagnosis of the "problem," it is utterly misguided in many ways, including in its prescriptions.

For example, as a student of philosophy and politics his conflation of "Marxism," "deconstructionism," "Post-modernism," and "post-structuralism" with "nihilism," and his absurd claim that these philosophies represent "the essence of the modern left" hurts my head.

As an armchair historian his equating communism with fascism ("Fascism is just a variant of the socialist mindset focused on culture and race.") ridiculous. I acknowledge a complex debate over the nature of fascism, but vehemently disagree with his naive and unjustified claims. At best fascism can be said to be a novel ideology opposed to both classical liberalism (conservativism) and socialism/communism. My own interpretation is that Fascism is more conservative than socialist.

I also detect several contradictions in Harper's thinking. He is at once concerned about the recent turn of conservativism into populism, but sees the solution as re-articulating and better communicating classical conservativism, as if the outcome isn't a logical consequence of his own politics. I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson ironically lamenting the rise of populist Andrew Jackson (see my recent review of Gordon Wood's "Radicalism of the American Revolution"). Moreover, if Harper didn't see the left as a "boogey man" he might notice that his own perspective, at least on economics, could these days be considered "liberal." Harper is right to criticize recent conservative fetishization of the "market" above all else, and right to call for it to be subordinated to social values and direction. In fact this reminded me very much of the principles espoused in Marc Carney's book "Value(s)"!

[Glenn Humplik · Rating 3 out of 5]

During his tenure as Prime Minister of Canada Harper was known for his my way or the highway approach to leadership. This book is an extension of that time preaching the benefits of Conservatism while denouncing anything to do with Liberalism. There are also the usual tooting my own horn moments post-career politicians annoyingly share with their followers via the written word but not one mention of his failings - that were numerous - as leader. His close mindedness and unwillingness to adapt led to his downfall as prime minister and now it devalues the message he tries to convey in this book.

Not really written for general public consumption, this book’s audience is Conservative policy makers, business leaders and anyone needing to fill their right leaning cognitive biases. It’s unfortunate his views are so skewed as the book contains some good ideas that made me reflect on economic policy and the growing rise of populism in politics throughout the world.

[Marshall Chapman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars. Very thorough and articulate - reads just like a long Harper speech. A bit over my head at times but very relevant with Trump’s second inauguration on Monday. The book seeks to explore the rise of populism in 2016-18 (prevalent today too): its causes, roots, and what it means for Conservatism. Very interesting read if you’re curious on where Conservatism came from and where it’s going in this “new age” of populism south of the border and in parts of Europe.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who leans liberal on most issues, I didn’t expect to like this book as much as I did. A reasoned, thoughtful, articulate book on what it means to be conservative—especially in an ever changing, increasingly complex/global world.

[Brigid · Rating 2 out of 5]

So boring (read: too much econ) also showed a misunderstanding and overexaggerated understanding of left-leaning policy ideas, focusing only on extremes on the left but only on the moderates on the right.

[Ted Hillary · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stephen Harper is really an American at heart and a true believer of Donald Trump and his conservative policies.

[Luigi Benetton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished “Right Here, Right Now
Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption”
by Stephen J. Harper
Not bad. Lots of worthwhile insight and perspective, and some room for debate - if the author would brook such a thing...

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some interesting quotes with my review in the comments:

This overconfidence in markets not only generated an irresponsible deregulation in banking and finance. It also created a world of economic interdependence where the consequences would spin rapidly around the globe to nations that lacked the means to avoid them or deal with them. In countries with collapsing banking sectors, the only option became the large-scale bailout of financial institutions, often with crippling effects on national budgets.
In the meantime, little was done to address the practical challenges facing working people and their families. After 2008, long-stagnant incomes for regular folks in many countries became declining ones. This was particularly notable in the United States.
Yet, despite the global financial crisis, a theoretical moralism continued to reign supreme in the economic-policy talk of politicians, think-tanks, and policy-makers. Capitalism and markets, especially the rising stock market, would come to be viewed as ends in themselves. For most regular people, it might as well have been a different language. They were still hurting. They were angry. And they were being ignored. This is what Donald Trump heard that others did not. (pg.31)

As NCC president, I attended an American conservative policy convention outside Chicago that spring. One of the issues swirling about was the congressional debate on President Clinton's push to have China admitted to the World Trade Organization. The discussion revolved largely around whether opening up U.S.-China trade would advance human rights and democratic reform in the People's Republic. Taken for granted, especially by most Republicans, was that the initiative meant unprecedented opportunity for the American economy. Indeed, without GOP support, the measure would never have passed.
It is long past time to come to the obvious conclusion on the human rights debate. President Xi Jinping may be an exceptional leader, but a liberal reformer he is not. Indeed, more than any Chinese leader since Mao, he is utterly committed to authoritarian governance. The central objective of his tenure to date has been to return China to a system in which one man governs for life.
Equally obvious, but less admitted, is that the economic argument has also proven to be wrong. The Clinton trade deal has been economically disastrous for much of the U.S. economy. The Chinese-American trade imbalance is four to one, with an outflow of $375 billion a year and rising. Worse still, it has cost the United States millions of well-paying jobs.
Many continue to resist this negative evaluation. Their argument goes something like this: "Sure, the Chinese sell us lots of lower-end manufacturing goods. Yes, it has cost us some jobs. But Americans get cheaper products and that has kept down our cost of living." Seriously? What these people are describing is not even a trade relationship. "You sell me something and I get to buy it" is not trade. It is just a purchase.
For the most part, that is the Chinese-American economic relationship. The Chinese sell, Americans buy, and the jobs move one way-to China. More problematically, these imbalances are fanning the rise of a strategic rival to the United States. the enormity of the error of this policy is simply astounding.
Yet-and this is the important part=establishment voices in both U.S. political parties remain overwhelmingly supportive of the arrangement. This becomes particularly evident whenever Donald Trump attempts to do something about it. He is immediately condemned by a tirade of homilies about the benefits of trade and the sins of ever trying to limit it.....
But one thing I know is this: trade is complicated. It has winners and losers. Trade negotiations require clear-eyed knowledge and in-depth assessment. It is as possible to get a bad deal as a good deal. And political leaders have a responsibility to know the difference.
From conservative think-tanks to the liberal crowd at Davos, many have lost this understanding. This is how we get columns and essays with titles like "There are no 'myths' or exceptions about free trade: it's always unrelentingly good." or "The blessings of free trade." They assert a perspective based on theory alone-and a poor understanding of theory at that. (pg. 33)

In thirty years, China has gone from being one of the world's poorest countries to being its second-largest economy. Since the financial crisis, it has become the linchpin of global economic growth. The reality, however, is that the purpose of Chinese market reforms has always been to reinforce the power of its communist government. Economic liberalization, though wide-ranging, has remained careful, deliberate, and top-down, not spontaneous, organic, and business-driven. Whether we call China's economy "market socialism" or "state capitalism," it is not remotely a market economy in the Western sense. Elements of state ownership, central planning, and political direction remain important in all of the country's major industries.
This was all simply ignored when China was admitted to the WTO in 2001. As with the addition of Russia to the G7, the facts on the ground were disregarded. Actually, it was worse. Russia in the 1990s was developing some of the characteristics of a liberal democracy, a market economy, and a Western ally. Seeing these things in China was pure wishful thinking.
The practical problem for the West is that current arrangements effectively give Chinese goods and investment wide-ranging access to Western markets, except where this is explicitly blocked. But Western exports to China are admitted only when, where, and in what quantities China chooses. Not surprisingly, China has racked up enormous trade surpluses with key countries, particularly the United States. (pg. 41)

We are now seeing the political consequences. U.S. congressional districts exposed to large increases in imports, particularly from China, have tended to become more populist. Likewise, there is a robust relationship at the district level between exposure to Chinese imports and a shift toward supporting Trump. Analysis suggests that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania would likely have elected Hilary Clinton in the absence of such developments. Incidentally, a post-Brexit study similarly found that Leave votes were significantly higher in regions more affected by the ramping up of Chinese imports over the past three decades.
Some will claim that these developments were "inevitable." We have to be clear about what the use of that term means. The general opening of global trade meant it was inevitable that low-skilled jobs in the West would go to lower-wage economies. However, no such opening was inevitable. And it was certainly not inevitable that the arrangement would allow China to largely shelter its own domestic marketplace. But that is what happened. And that is why the trade gap between China and many Western nations is persistent and growing.
So there really are good deals and bad deals. This is one of the major reasons why we have Trump. And it is why, even if Trump fails, this issue will not go away. (pg. 44)

Trump, Brexit, and the European populist movements are exposing a fault line in modern Western societies. The division is between what has been called those who live "anywhere" and those who live "somewhere." The rise of globalization in the past quarter-century has transformed an element of the population. Segments of urban and university-educated professionals have become genuinely globally oriented in their careers and personal lives...
Such cosmopolitans, or "Anywheres," or just plain "globalists" have an increasingly weak attachment to the nation-state. Their professional, personal, and even familial relationships are increasingly with people like themselves from a range of countries. The examples I give may be rooted in stereotypes, but there are many less extreme cases among people who work, study, or join online communities that cross boundaries.
There are a lot of these people, but there are still many more completely unlike them. Maybe you are a manufacturing or retail worker, or even a small-businessperson.....Such localists or "Somewheres" are far more likely to be nationalists at heart. Social solidarity matters to them because their future hinges on the society in which they live.
For Somewheres, nationalism is more than just a strong emotional attachment (although it is usually that): it is critical to their lives. If things go badly; or if policy choices turn out to be wrong. Somewheres cannot just shift their lives to somewhere else. They depend on the nation-state.
Of course, Anywheres also depend on the nation-state, whether they admit it or not. It is, after all, the major nation-states that have made globalization possible. To the extent that there are global markets with rules and stability, it is agreements among nation-states that created them. Without these agreements, international commerce would be little beyond occasional exchanges and one-off transactions. Think about it. Anything more than that requires investments in transportation, communications, and logistics. It depends on enforcement of contracts, provision of information, and prevention of fraud. It needs stable, reliable, and exchangeable currencies. There must be arrangements that bring distributional outcomes into conformity with acceptable political norms. And so on.
It is fashionable for Anywheres to blame bad national policies-and especially populism-for the instabilities and uncertainties in the global economy. Sometimes they are indeed to blame, but not that often. The "global community" provides little or nothing in the wide range of institutions and practices that well-governed markets require. The critical functions of laws and regulations, monetary and fiscal stability, conflict management and resolution, and social services and redistribution have so far been provided almost exclusively by nation-states. Left to its own devices, globalization would be an economic world of massive and persistent instability-as it was in late 2008, until the major nation-states stepped in...
In other words, the nation-state, with all its flaws, is a concrete reality. The "global community" is little more than a concept. People with something to lose are bound to be more beholden to an important fact than a mere notion.
This is where I part company with the Anywheres. I remember one occasion when an international automobile executive tried to tell me how Canadian policy for his industry should more closely match China's. Really? My gut reaction to this was more than just "it is not politically possible," which, of course, it is not remotely. I asked him, "Well, do you want to live in China?" Naturally, he does not. Neither do the Canadian people. But the Anywheres seem to believe they can pick from whatever national basket they like. Chinese economic outcomes, American legal protections, European governance, Panamanian taxes, you name it. And if they do not get what they want, they affirm a right to just pick up and leave-on a passport provided by their nation-state.
I do not quarrel with the Anywheres about the real and even greater potential benefits of globalization. My disagreement is more with this globalist mindset. I do not care how much of a globalist you fancy yourself. You have some responsibility as a citizen to Somewhere. And if you do not understand that, then you will behave as if you have no responsibilities at all. (pg. 56)

However, I also got a taste of how problematic bad immigration policy can be. I think in particular of my government's problems with the Temporary Foreign Workers Program. It remains by contrast one of my greatest sources of dissatisfaction from my time in office.
The RFWP had long been focused on filling gaps in labour-market expertise. However, in 2002, the previous government had expanded it to bring low-skilled workers into Canada. From that moment forward, the number of TFWs grew steadily. Within a decade, it had more than doubled. By 2014, the number of "temporary workers" in the country exceeded 175,000.....
In Canada, we have always linked the idea of immigration with the aspiration of eventual citizenship. Why were we departing from this? As the numbers rose, and I repeatedly asked about them, I was assured that we faced unique circumstances from the commodity boom, especially in Western Canada. "Labour market impact assessments," I was told, had affirmed this.
In reality, there had been no substantive labour force assessments. Such assessments consisted of little beyond businesses simply affirming that they needed temporary foreign workers. Applications were not restricted to Western Canada, or booming sectors, or anything else. In fact, TFWs were increasingly being brought into some of the highest unemployment regions in the country. And they were not really "temporary" at all. When their terms expired, such workers often just rolled over to another admission period.
Some businesses had become so dependent on TFWs, and had so few experienced Canadians, that they were even asking for supervisory and management positions to be filmed by them. They were, in effect, shifting to temporary foreign workers as their preferred labour model. The more we investigated, the more we encountered situations where companies would not even accept applications from Canadians-and would then claim they could not find Canadians to do the work.
Why did this happen? The evidence, put simply, shows that temporary foreign workers were helping companies keep wages down. Besides, it was easier for many businesses to have their workers recruited by the government and unable to search for any other job. (pg. 61)

Markets are powerful, but they are not perfect. They gain their effectiveness from both human strengths, like freedom and ingenuity, and human weaknesses, like self-interest and greed. They require governance to control violence and prevent fraud, just as they need non-governmental institutions that breed personal responsibility and enable social attachments. In modern, advanced economies, markets are also complex. There are no easy formulas for creating successful market-oriented policies. They require good judgment based on data, experience, and insight. (pg. 90)

Americans have for the past generation have been told two things. One is that the United States has unique global leadership responsibilities. But the other is that the world is an increasingly multipolar place where the U.S. cannot lead alone. I do not think that both of these ideas can really be true. In fact, I have concluded that American administrations will continue to struggle in foreign affairs as long as they try to square these circles. That means they must accept what the second statement really means. If they cannot lead alone, then they cannot really lead. Not unless they are prepared to contribute most of the assets while sharing most of the decisions with others. Which is what has been happening, with less and less efficacy.
The American public is losing patience with that situation. The U.S. contributes nearly one of every four dollars of the United Nations budget. Yet it is regularly overruled or undermined by the vetoes and influence of those who simply do not share America's interests. The farcical results of international attempts to slow the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs are only one example.
In the case of NATO, the U.S. spends three of every four dollars. But, even among allies, it seems frequently hamstrung by those who are as lavish in their opinions as they are stingy in their contributions. It is not a reach to suggest that an "America First" foreign policy could provide a much clearer and more effective agenda of genuinely American priorities. In any case, given the evolution of the world and of U.S. public opinion, I believe that the days of foreign policy based on American leadership rather than national interest are numbered. (pg. 126)

The real key to a successful immigration system is not one particular policy or another. It is convincing the public that the system serves the national interest, that it is not injurious to working people, and that it is administered with integrity and consistency. Provide those assurances and the public can have trust and confidence in even fairly high levels of immigration. Without those things, immigration policy will be extremely challenging....
To start with, illegal immigration simply must be confronted. It contributes to lawlessness, crime, and a lack of confidence in government in general and in the immigration system in particular. That leads me to Donald Trump's "wall."
A physical barrier to entry can be effective and may have its place. That said, we must understand that it alone will not remotely solve the problem. People go north to the United States, or to Europe for that matter, because opportunities there are so much greater than what they have at home. The vast majority of such people seek only to work and, often, to send money back to relatives in their native lands. But, in economic terms, the arrival of such immigrants is, for the destination countries, just a problem of "supply." It cannot be effectively addressed unless something is also done to address "demand."
The demand comes from employers who willingly hire illegal workers. If they do not suffer consequences for doing so, the problem cannot be fixed. Otherwise, the best scenario is that illegal workers will return almost as quickly as they are removed. Yet even Trump seems unwilling to face this issue. If conservatives are to be champions of immigration reform, the issue of illegal immigration, including the role of businesses big and small, must be tackled and it must be tackled honestly. (pg. 146)

Traditional "public" media is dying. As it is doing so, its worst traits are becoming exaggerated-the escalation of conflict, the sensationalizing of speculation, opinion masquerading as news. None of this is about information, negotiation, and partnership-all of the things on which good business depends. Avoid these channels when possible. As the legendary hockey coach and manager Scotty Bowman once said to me about traditional media, "If you are doing well, you don't need them. If you are doing badly, they won't help you." (pg. 158)

[Jon Kinning · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Couldn’t put it down. Lays out the conservative ideology and the future of the party to remain strong. Clearly a brilliant political mind. Great read!!!!