Harper’s lack of ‘internal congruency and authenticity’

Buried deep in yesterday’s reaction to my Contrarian post about the debate (I say MI won and SH lost) was this perspicacious comment from reader Heather Holm

Ignatieff’s body language and tone of voice matched what he was saying, unlike Harper’s. He showed an internal congruency and authenticity that you just don’t see in Harper. This is what bothers many people about Harper: you can’t read the man. His soothing voice and his passive face mask whatever it is that he is really feeling. Sure Harper “did well,” but it was acting – and from a script. It leads many of us not to trust him. Many other people, unfortunately, are deceived and satisfied by the mask. By contrast, Ignatieff’s considerable intellect is much better aligned with his heart and soul

Dennis Falvey agrees:

Heather Holm got to the quick of the matter. Harper is not believable as a human being, by which I mean, it’s hard to see compassion and human empathy in his demeanour and presentation, and absolutely impossible to see these things in his policies. He may be a bright man, but bright in the sense of Machiavelli, not Lincoln.

The best outcome would be the status quo. Because at that point, and for various reasons, I think all parties would have a change of leader. 34M people, and this bunch is the best that we can do?!