It all seemed so straightforward during the election this past May, when the incumbent party had pledged to eliminate the federal deficit in the fiscal year of 2014-15, a year earlier than previously projected.

But, as we know, election pledges often don’t have a long shelf life.

So, it was fascinating to watch Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, just before Parliament resumed in mid-September.

Flaherty, ever the fiscal hawk, was off to Europe to read the riot act to those European laggards about sticking to their commitment to reduce their debt.

Harper — who seems to be adjusting to dynasty politics very well, thank you — was on Parliament Hill, speaking at the annual summer caucus meeting. He wasn’t such a fiscal hawk.

In fact, Harper pledged to be “flexible’’ on fiscal policy should Canada be adversely affected by economic storms elsewhere. His words have been interpreted by journalists and economists as a signal that Ottawa will revive stimulus spending if necessary to address unemployment.

To put the prime minister’s words in political shorthand: stimulus if necessary, but not necessarily stimulus.

Obviously, if job creation becomes the No. 1 fiscal priority, elimination of the deficit will be nudged aside.

Sure, the Conservatives will give voters the impression for a time that the government aims to address both priorities, just as the Tories used to say the federal deficit could be eliminated virtually painlessly by economic growth.

But if economic — and political — conditions warrant, the Tories will segue from deficit elimination and into stimulation. Harper’s use of the word “flexible’’ may turn out to be the ship of state beginning to change course into a different narrative.

Pity the poor guy at the Department of Finance who has been busy all summer working on the first draft of next year’s budget. Before Canada Day, the political masters were single-minded about getting rid of the deficit. Now, not so much.

In fairness, all governments change course. Governments, like the business of journalism, are able to depend on the public’s short memory.

The Liberals had promised before coming to power in 1993 to get rid of the GST and reduce the deficit to 3% of gross domestic product. Then, upon taking office, that party decided it made more sense to keep the GST and promise to eliminate the deficit altogether by 1997. The change in strategy proved to be a winner.

The change in script made so much sense that Paul Martin was confident enough to declare as finance minister in March 2004 that the deficit would be eliminated “come hell or high water.’’

The prime minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, was confident enough to allow his finance minister to use those words. Compare that quote with what the current prime minister said in September 2011: “In managing the economy, circumstances demand that we listen carefully to Canadians and that we be flexible when necessary.”

Meanwhile, the current finance minister was in Europe, declaring: “Delay is the enemy.’’ Flaherty was referring to Europe’s need to reduce its debt, but his words also could be used in reference to how, over time, a government deficit will transcend from cyclical to structural. This is how the cyclical, temporary Canadian federal deficit of 1974 lasted more than two decades.

Want to bet the prime minister will be having some long discussions with his finance minister this autumn?

Given current anxieties, it makes political and economic sense not to be single-minded about the deficit — in the short term, at least. In the long term, chronic deficits will dog governments — and society.

Also working against quick elimination of the federal deficit is simple demographics. A growing number of voters will have no memory of the high interest rates, stagnation and higher taxes that come with a chronic deficit.

So far, the Harper government has been able to walk over a weak Opposition and manage issues with relative ease. But a lasting deficit will be the first major issue that will challenge this government’s ability to manage its way through trouble.

Or it may become a future government’s problem. IE