I voted in support of Harper three times. Maybe it was being in a minority government that kept him in check, but he had my support. When he was given a majority, I don't like what he became and couldn't support the CPC. Plus, he seemed to think that he could beat Laurier's record, which was arrogant.
Let me start out by saying I was not a Harper fan.
That said, I've never been one to criticize 'arrogance' unto itself. Arrogance is confidence that someone in hindsight deems to be misplaced or overreaching.
I could care less about records, if any PM deserved 4 terms or 5, based on their accomplishments, I'd be fine w/that.
Its all about the results.
That's not to say process is irrelevant. We can all point to obnoxious and illegal extremes.
But assuming we are not discussing those, I'm very much about outcomes.
I don't think Harper, at the end of the day had much to brag about.
But the reality is very few PMs (or their governments) have been part of or lead indisputably positive change on a grand scale.
The dawn of CPP; or medicare would strike me as tremendous achievements.
On balance I'd be willing to accord similar status to the Charter.
While I don't think his many terms were un-ending glory, I do think Trudeau ought to get credit for that.
But I can't think of a PM since the early 80s, of either of the two parties which have held government at the federal level who have had comparable accomplishments to those I've listed.
We could largely compare and contrast variations on maintaining the status quo, or making modest improvements in one space, generally at the expense of another.
I'll happily tolerate a leader's outsized ego, providing they can come reasonably close to backing it up.
Which, PS, is not about how bright they are or aren't, though I certainly prize intelligence; nor how bull-headed they are, ( I tend to prefer nuance...but can respect stubbornness in the right context)
For me its all about your real, measurable, accomplishment and effects.