Ronald Reagan for Governor-General?

Did we choose the wrong brother?

When Ronald Reagan ran for US president, a lot of folks thought he had the wrong background. What does an actor know about governing?

Yet I think it is arguable that Reagan had the most successful presidency since Washington.

Okay, you want to hear the argument? It is universally agreed that he had a successful presidency. But apart from him, and Washington, all the presidents generally lauded by historians share one characteristic: that they expended government. This is the easy way to look like a big man. Only Reagan managed to look impressive while actually trying to shrink his own power.

How did he pull it off? Perhaps because he was an actor. In fact, a good actor has a lot of the qualities needed in a good chief executive. He can make people like him, and he can inspire them. Compare the success of Pope John Paul II—another experienced actor, though an amateur.

Being a good actor is not enough, it seems. Joseph Estrada was not successful as president of the Philippines. One must also have brains and principles. But it does seem to be a very good preparation for the job.

All of which brings me around to the matter of Canada’s Governor-General. In the recent past, there has been a tendency to fill the post, purely ceremonial, with a retired journalist or politician. Failing that, there is an older tradition of wedging in a businessman. All bad choices. A politician will struggle to bite his tongue on the issues of the day, and will necessarily come with partisan baggage. Giving government rewards to journalists compromises the objectivity and independence of the Fourth Estate. Business executives are generally boring and difficult for the average Canadian to identify with. Except for entrepreneurs, who are loose cannons.

Here, surely, an experienced actor would be the ideal choice. First, the post is ceremonial; this is to say, it is an acting job. Second, an actor above anyone else will have the skill to stay in character. He or she will probably not blunder into controversial comments or unconstitutional overreach. Thirdly, he or she would be or have been an active contributor to Canadian culture, and so a suitable symbol of the nation, promoting both culture and cultural unity. Fourthly, he would, as an actor, have a special talent to inspire, as demonstrated by Reagan and John Paul II.

We’ve produced quite a few actors who would have been perfect for the role. In fact, the Governor General type, the man of substance and dignity, seems to be a Canadian acting specialty. Raymond Burr; Raymond Massey; Lorne Greene; Christopher Plummer; Michael J. Fox; Colm Feore; Glenn Ford; Chief Dan George; Graham Greene; Catherine O’Hara; Genevieve Bujold; Donald Sutherland. Leslie Nielsen and William Shatner would also have been ideal in their “man of substance” days, before they both turned comedian. Comedians, another Canadian specialty, are probably not suitable for the job.