Left Wing Columnist Cheats Me

I just sent the following letter to the editor to express my outrage concerning today's Frances Russell column in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Dear  Sir/Madam:

I would recommend that before columnist Frances Russell smears Prime Minister Harper in print, she first check her facts.

In her column, “Harper wages 'wars'” she claims the Prime Minister called Elections Canada “the epitome of bureaucratic evil” with “leftist axes to grind.”

The reality is Harper never said those words, I did.

The Lawrence Martin Globe and Mail column Russell cited, was actually quoting me.

I hope the Free Press quickly sets the record straight.

After all, why should Harper get the credit for my colourful quotes?

Professor learns a lesson

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff gave a speech last night on the lessons he learned during his short stint as a politician.

And the key lesson was: Academics have a lot to learn about the real world.

Anyway, it reminded me of a column I wrote three years ago which explored Ignatieff's political naivety.

I have reproduced it below:

******
Professor needs a lesson in Liberal politics
A couple of weeks ago, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff made a serious mistake: He said what he believed.

While answering questions in Cambridge Ont., he declared if he ever became prime minister he would raise taxes.

Sure it was a controversial comment but Ignatieff believed he was just being honest and he probably expected such honesty would be applauded.

He was wrong.

Polls now show 30% of Canadians are less likely to vote Liberal in the next election as a result of his honest view on taxes.

Needless to say, this turn of events has likely caused some consternation in Liberal Party headquarters.

In fact, I can just imagine what happened when the Liberal leader met to discuss the situation with his high-priced political consultants.

It probably went something like this:

Consultant: Michael what the heck were you thinking when you talked about raising taxes? Remember our plan? It's simple. Do nothing. Say nothing.

Ignatieff: But surely as anyone with a PhD in advanced economic theory realizes, the only way to eliminate the deficit is to raise taxes. It was common knowledge among us faculty at Harvard. Indeed, I remember attending a striking lecture on the subject ...

Consultant: Excuse me, professor Brainiac, but we have been through this a hundred times. Let me repeat, politics is not like Harvard. Didn't you read the Liberal campaign manual I sent you?

Ignatieff: Not yet. I thought better preparation would be to read Plato's Republic in the original Greek.

Consultant: (heaving deep sigh) Alright forget it. Just listen to me. We have to do some serious damage control. Next time you give a speech I want you to promise to scrap the GST. Then I want you to publicly sign a pledge which states you will never, ever, under any circumstances raise taxes. Got that?

Ignatieff: I can't do that! What if one day I have to raise taxes to pay for something important, such as a national library to house all the books I've written?

Consultant: Relax. I didn't say you couldn't raise taxes, I just meant you should promise not to raise them. Once you're in power you can do what you want.

Ignatieff: I don't understand. It sounds like you're saying it's alright to break an election promise.

Consultant: Of course, it's alright. That's how it's done. Don't you remember, that's how we Liberals win elections, with fake promises.

Ignatieff: No. I don't remember. How could I? I was in the United States for the past 30 years. I even have a hard time remembering the name of Canada's capital. By the way, what is the name of our capital? Is it Toronto?

Consultant: Never mind that. The point is, Jean Chretien promised to scrap the GST and he got elected. Later in Ontario, Dalton McGuinty promised he would never raise taxes and he got elected.

Ignatieff: And you're saying after they got elected they broke their promises.

Consultant: We still have the GST don't we? And McGuinty hiked taxes about five minutes after he became premier.

Ignatieff: This is fascinating. It reminds me of an academic paper I wrote on the political dilemma facing the Roman orator Cicero in the dying days of the Roman Republic ...

Consultant: Something tells me this is not going to be easy.

Alberta Race Getting Tough

A couple of months ago I was part of a TV panel discussing the impending Alberta election.

My view at the time was even though the Wildrosers were lagging in the polls they could still make a race out of it.

And it seems I was right because recently the Alberta Progressive Conservatives launched an anti-Wildrose attack ad.

Typically you don’t go on the attack if you have a big lead; you do it when you want to quickly degrade a growing or potential threat.

At any rate, the PC ad goes after Wildrose for opposing the Alberta government’s tough new anti-drunk driving law.

What’s interesting about the ad is the tag, which I suspect will be the framing message for all the PC party’s future attacks: “Wildrose: Not worth the risk"

It’s a nice succinct message that appeals to the “status quo” bias of voters and to their fear of the unknown.

Not a bad strategy.  Essentially the PCs are saying “Hey, we realize you might not be crazy about us, but why take the risk of handing over power to somebody you don’t know and who might be a radical?”

In other words, it’s the old “Better the Devil you know” tactic.

This is essentially the formula the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals used successfully in recent elections.

And in this regard, the Wildrosers did not do themselves any favours by so publically opposing a drunk driving law.

Yes, I realize it will appeal to the party’s libertarian base, but it will also make non-ideological Albertans and even “law and order” conservatives a little antsy. In short, it’s a hard sell that feeds into the PC narrative about risky Wildrosers.

This is why the PCs are attacking them on this issue.

Nor do I like the Wildrose attack ads going after Alberta Premier Alison Redford. See below.

These “flip flopper” ads, while common, are not that effective. Basically you are saying your opponent is right half the time! Plus, this ad focuses on process. Does anybody really care about fixed election dates?

My point is Wildrose will have to get more savvy about picking the issues which they fight on and get a lot tougher when attacking the PCs. Of course, such actions will only invite more PC attacks.

All of which means the Alberta election could get pretty hot. 

Robocall Scandal Likely Won't Hurt the Tories (Yet)

I suspect Prime Minister Harper’s enemies and detractors see the Robcall scandal as the silver bullet that will pierce his government’s Teflon armour.

But will it? I doubt it.

And yes I know all the sordid details about the crank calls, the voter suppression tactics and the damage to our democratic process. I have also heard all the heated reaction.

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae says these Robocalls contributed to the defeat of Liberal candidates in at least 27 ridings; columnist Michael Den Tandt says the scandal means “the legitimacy of the Tory majority is in question.” Some are even calling it the equivalent of Watergate.

Sounds pretty serious.

So why do I say this won’t hurt the Tories?

Well, you need to consider three important issues, one is logical, one legal, and one political.

Consider the logic. How can Rae or anyone else possibly say the Robocalls contributed to the defeat of Liberal candidates? Where’s the proof? Seems to me the only way to test Rae’s hypothesis is to go back to May 2, 2011 and run the election again without the Robocalls and see how the results change.

But as far as I know no one has access to a time machine.

What about the legal aspect? Well I don’t want to sound like a bleeding heart or anything, but under our system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. As of yet we have no real evidence as to who was behind those Robocalls. So the rush to judge Harper or his party or some 23 year old kid is premature.

Yet surely just the perception of a Tory scandal will seriously undermine the government’s popular support, right?

Wrong.

And this leads me to the politics of scandals.

The fact is most voters believe all politicians are basically a shady lot. So most scandals don’t really shock them. Indeed, when given a choice between a competent crook or an honest fool, they will pick the crook almost every time because, heck, at least he’s smart.

And voters want smart leaders, leaders for instance, who can manage the economy.

This is why the Tories were not hurt by the “in and out” Elections Canada scandal or by the Bev Oda “Not” scandal or by the Speaker of the House “in contempt” scandal.

But what about the “Adscam scandal”? Didn’t that kill the Liberals?

I’d say no. I’d say what really hurt the Liberals wasn’t the scandal, but former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s over the top reaction to it.  That plus Martin and later Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff were basically incompetent politicians.

I suspect that had the crafty and tough Jean Chretien hung around a little longer, the Liberal Party would be in much better shape today.

Now none of this is to say the Robocall scandal will leave the Tories completely unscathed. In fact, it has likely tarnished their brand.

And these scandals could also have a cumulative effect. That is one day voters will remember all this stuff when and if they are looking for reasons not to like Harper.

But right now they are just not looking for reasons.

UPDATE:

One thing I never imagined was the Liberals would actually help the Tories off the hook regarding the Robocall scandal.

But that's what's happening.

The Liberals now admit a staff member in their research bureau was responsible for publishing "Vikileaks" which dished out "Dirty Tricks" style attacks on Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

This now gives the Tories a chance to go from defence to offence and will reinforce the notion that all politicians are the same.

Robocalls, Scandals and Politics

The media is abuzz these days with the so-called “Robocall” scandal.

As the whole world knows by now, Elections Canada has traced fraudulent phone calls made during the last federal election to a company with links to the Conservative Party.

According to media reports crank “robocalls” discouraged voting for a particular party, or incorrectly advised electors of changed polling locations.

For their part the Conservatives have denied any role in the phone calls and have denounced such tactics, as they should. Suppressing votes in this manner is about as sleazy as you can get.

Yet Tory denials have not stopped many in the media and elsewhere from blaming such tactics on what they call the Conservative Party’s “ends justifies the means culture”.

And certainly it’s true the Conservative Party is aggressive and as I have argued myself sometimes their aggressiveness needs to be tempered.

But the problem goes beyond any one party. Indeed, the robocall incident is really just a symptom of what’s wrong with politics in general.

Sadly, elections are not about competing visions and may the best idea win. For partisans they are more like a life or death competition where the only thing that matters is winning.

In short, many in politics are guided by one simple principle: “We must beat the other guy no matter what it takes.”

And as long as this “winning at all costs” mentality exists it will inevitably lead to cheating and to “Dirty Tricks.”

This is why political lawn signs are stolen or vandalized; this is why dirt about opposing candidates are dug up; this why opposition phone lines are jammed; and this is why crank robocalls are made. Who cares about ideas?; who cares about right or wrong?

Then when one side does it, the other side figures it must respond in kind.

And please, let’s be honest: all parties from time to time resort to less than savory tactics.

It’s just human nature; it’s just politics.

Gerry's Political Maxims

After working in the political communications biz for more than 25 years, I have learned a lot of things.  I just couldn’t help it! Anyway, based on my experience I have come up with a list rules which I call “Gerry’s Political Maxims”. Here are the first 50:

  

1)      The most powerful emotion in politics is fear.

2)      The second most powerful emotion is hate.

3)      Voters will always prefer a crook to a fool.

4)      When it comes to policy ideas, vagueness works better than clarity.

5)      Get voters to react, not think.

6)      Whenever possible employ the “Us” vs “Them” dynamic

7)      Don’t use attack ads unless you have to, and you usually have to.

8)      The less time you have, the more important money is.

9)      Don’t betray your base.

10)  If you can’t communicate a political message in 15 seconds or less, you’re doing something wrong.

11)   Never get defensive, always attack.

12)  Stay on message.

13)  If you fight with the media do it for strategic reasons, not out of anger.

14)  Always get the facts right.

15)  Voters don’t care what you think; they care what they think.

16)  Read public polls with a lot salt on hand.

17)   Never repeat an attack

18)   Never talk about money

19)  Mistakes will always happen, just move on.

20)  The media is obsessed with the “Politics of politics”

21)   If you can’t get people to like you, get them to agree with you

22)   Every message must reflect and advance your strategic objective

23)   Don’t trust anyone in politics

24)   No plan survives contact with the enemy; be prepared to adapt

25)   Three of the most important things in politics are money, money and money.

26)  What really matters in a political poll are the crosstabs.

27)  Most voters don’t care about ideology, they care about values.

28)  When you can’t avoid it; embrace it.

29)  Having the right enemies is just as important as having the right friends.

30)   Use your best ads last.

31)   Define or be defined.

32)   No matter how bad things get, always keep cool

33)  Don’t worry about media bias, they are out to get you, but they are also out to get everybody else.

34)  Your opponent runs “negative ads” your ads are always “comparative” or “truthful.”

35)  The principle of politics are like the principles of physics – they apply everywhere.

36)  Perception is reality.

37)   All politics is tribal

38)  If you don’t like a question, don’t answer it.

39)  Resist the urge to improvise

40)  Use humour with care.

41)  Repetition of a good message is good, really, really good.

42)  Don’t underestimate the importance of luck.

43)  If it’s stupid but works, then it isn’t stupid
.

44)   If you want a quick agreement among a disparate group, find a common enemy.

45)   When your opponent falls to his knees … kick him again.

46)  When speaking to Partisans  beware of “applause lines”

47)  In every campaign somebody will panic.

48)   If you really want to get nasty, use mail not TV

49)  Never speculate in public

50)  Idealism and politics don’t mix.

Dirty Tricks and the Internet

Ok, there has been lots of discussion and outrage about the “Vikileaks” Twitter campaign directed against Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

But what does it all mean?

Well first off, there is no question this was a nasty “Dirty Tricks” attack. It was personal, it was vicious, it was mean-spirited.

Which is why it’s getting so much attention.

But setting aside the ethics involved, you have to concede this enterprise was also a masterstroke of political insurgency warfare.

Without spending any money, and with only a little research, the creator of the Vikileaks Twitter account managed to inflict a serious wound on a federal cabinet minister.

And make no mistake, this did hurt Toews. Overnight he became a national laughing stock.

It also likely helped to focus public attention on the government’s controversial bill on Internet surveillance.

That’s pretty impressive.

And, of course, now the Conservatives are screaming “Dirty Tricks” and accusing the NDP of being behind the attack, without any real evidence.

This is not surprising. According to the standard Political Manual, whenever you get hit with some kind of damaging smear attack, it’s good strategy to feign outrage and pin the blame on your opponent, regardless of the facts.

At any rate, whoever pulled this stunt had better be good at covering his or her tracks, because the Tories would love to dump a train load of hurt on the perpetrator.

Mind you, what’s interesting about this attack isn’t the Dirty Tricks aspect. Like it or not, Dirty Tricks campaigns have been around as long as politics. That's not a pleasant thought, but it's reality.

In fact, I am pretty sure somebody in Ancient Rome handed out anonymously-written papyrus parchments containing embarrassing details about Julius Caesar.

What makes the Vikileaks campaign so fascinating is the medium it employed, i.e. Social Media.

Again, using just a free, simple Twitter account, somebody managed to rock the government and entrance the media. So in other words, anonymous mudslinging has never been easier!

What this means is we better get used to more of this cyber style Dirty Tricks politics in the future.

Yep, we are heading for a nasty new world.

Harper's China Policy Explained, Sort of.

If you’re reading the news these days you know that Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks China is very important.

That’s why he only takes it out when special guests visit for dinner.

But that’s beside the point.

More important is that Prime Minister Harper has had a big change of heart when it comes to China the country.

At one time, not so long ago, the Prime Minister had a “right wingy” take on the Red Chinese. They were Commies, they abused human rights, they abused Tibet, they abused the Dalai Lama.

But that was before he considered the crucial, geo-political strategic ramifications otherwise known as  Chinese money.

So after carefully considering the issue, the Prime Minister came to see China as less of a Red Menace and more as a good business partner.

That means, it’s Goodbye human rights; Goodbye Tibet, and, of course, Goodbye Dolly, …I mean Dalai.

And while this might upset some “conservative purists”, it’s really just good politics.

To see why, just consider his current trip to China, a trip that saw Harper score three impressive foreign policy goals:

1. He carried out the extremely important task of posing for photo ops in exotic locations with adorable Panda bears.
   
   
2. He signed several key business deals meaning it will be easier for China to steal Canada’s closely guarded trade secrets, such as Tim Horton’s new coffee cup sizes.
   
   
3. The Prime Minister sent a direct diplomatic message to American President Barack Obama. And that message went something like this: “Hey Barack. I am in a country with 1 billion frickin people. And guess what? Not one of them is a tree hugging, Hollywood celebrity. They want our oil. So suck on that!”

Now let me admit, all these ideas on China and Harper may or may not be accurate, but they sure made sense when I dreamed them up while waiting for my order at the Chinese restaurant.