The Politics of Budget-making

It always puzzles me when economists speculate about federal government budgets.

I mean, why do they bother?

After all, these budgets are typically not so much about economics as they are about politics.

And the Conservative government’s budget, scheduled to be delivered on March 29, will be no exception.

In fact, I am certain that while putting it together, the Conservatives studied polling data a lot more than they did economic models.

I am also certain the Conservatives found the politics of budget-making this year to be much more difficult than in previous years.

It’s easy to see why.

In past years the Conservative budget formula went something like this: Spend, spend and then spend some more.

About the only tough decision the Conservatives had to make was figuring out how many billboards bragging about their “Economic Action Plan” they needed to erect.

And yes, while all this spending may have ballooned the federal deficit, it also more or less defanged the Opposition.

The only line of attack it left open for the Liberals and NDP was to criticize the Tories for not expanding the deficit fast enough.

Hardly a rallying cry.

This year’s it’s going to be different. This year the government has promised to rein in its spending.

But by how much?

And this is where the difficult politics comes into play.

The fact is a large segment of the Conservative Party’s political base wants the government to go after spending with an axe or better yet a chainsaw.

I am talking about "economic conservatives," those individuals who support lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation and prudent fiscal policies.

More generally, they just want government to live within its means.

Of course, these economic conservative have not been too happy with the Conservative government’s spend-happy fiscal record.

Yet, in days gone by there were willing to cut the Tories some slack because the government was in a minority situation.

But no more. The Tories now have a majority and the economic conservatives are expecting a truly “conservative” budget.

That means slashing spending, that means reducing the size of government, that means privatizing crown corporations, that means balancing the books.

And while, philosophically-speaking, the Tories might wish to oblige such demands they probably worry that a truly “conservative” budget might trigger a public backlash.

Or at least it would mobilize well-funded and strident special interest groups which would rush to the barricades if they saw their entitlements threatened.

Governments which cutback tend to make enemies.

Consequently, if the Tories cut spending their party might (horror of horrors) suffer a drop in the polls.

So politically speaking the government finds itself between a partisan rock and a public relations hard place. If they don’t cut spending significantly they risk alienating their base, but if they do cut spending they risk suffering serious political damage.

So what will they do?

Well, I suspect the budget will be crafted as much as possible to please both sides of the fence.

To keep the economic conservatives happy the budget will contain lots of fiery Margaret Thatcher-style rhetoric about the importance of balancing the budget, it will also likely include some politically-strategic spending cuts to things like the CBC and to MP pensions. In other words, they will pursue cuts sure to please their conservative constituency.

Yet, the budget will not deliver any dramatic government spending cutbacks that could actually cause real pain to the public. More likely, the Tories will simply cut back on the rate of spending increases.

Such a budget might not make economic sense, but it sure will make political sense.

(This article originally appeared in the Hill Times.)

Harper and Judicial Activism

Happy Constitution Day!!

In case you didn't know, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is trying to sell the idea of making March 29th "Constitution Day", a day in which we are supposed to deepen our understanding of our constitutional traditions.

So with that in mind, I have decided to reproduce a column Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote 12 years ago, when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition.(That was back when the NCC actually did stuff that mattered.)

Anyway, in the column, which appeared on June 13, 2000, Harper describes why he thinks it's important to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to defend individual rights, or more specifically the right to free political expression.

See below:

Chretien Gagging Canadians
by Stephen Harper --

Last week, I launched a personal legal action in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench against the federal government's election gag law, Bill C-2. This law is the latest attempt by the federal government to restrict independent political advertising during elections.

So why is someone on the political "right" trying to have a law passed by Parliament overturned by the courts? Aren't all these "right-wingers" opposed to "judicial activism" and supporters of good, old "parliamentary supremacy"?

The answer, of course, is "no." Yes, I share many of the concerns of my colleagues and allies about biased "judicial activism" and its extremes. I agree that serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that there is no meaningful review or accountability mechanisms for Supreme Court justices.

But these things pale in comparison to the dangers and deceptions inherent in Bill C-2. My legal challenge constitutes the fifth time in the past 17 years that the National Citizens' Coalition has sponsored litigation against gag laws. On each previous occasion, the same scenario has unfolded: The government concedes the law restricts freedoms of expression and association, fails to provide a shred of evidence to justify such constitutional violations, and is laughed out of court.

In the most recent judgment earlier this year, Mr. Justice Donald Brenner of the B.C. Supreme Court shot down a provincial election gag law, saying: "To override Charter rights, it is necessary that there be more than a general hypothetical concern about a problem when there is no evidence to demonstrate that it has existed in the past or is likely to exist in the future."

The "hypothetical concern" is that independent political advertising could undermine electoral spending restrictions on political parties and candidates. Politicians argue that, because parties and candidates are limited, it is only fair that advocacy groups also be limited. If they are not, such "third parties" will upset the "level playing field."

The argument is intuitively appealing, but its premise is utterly dishonest. First of all, contrary to myth, Canada's major parties face no meaningful spending restrictions. In the next election, for example, the Liberal Party and its candidates will be able to spend more than $30-million. Most of those funds will come from the public purse -- through subsidies to both parties and donors -- without which such a "limit" could never be reached.

But what about the "level playing field" argument? Don't advocacy groups exist to help parties get elected? No, they don't. Advocacy groups may endorse or oppose parties and candidates, but their real goal is to advance a cause over the longer term.

Take the example of the "free trade" election of 1988. Gag-law folklore would have it that "third parties" poured millions of dollars into pro-free-trade advertising to help elect the Tories. The reality is the opposite.

Studies show free-trade spending had no effect on the partisan outcome of the election. (The Tories won on the opposition "split vote," not the issue.) But what the advocacy groups did was advance the issue of free trade and polarize the election around it.

On the one hand, this advocacy spending reinforced the pro-free-trade wing of the Liberal Party, which had traditionally supported the concept. And the reality is that the Liberals, once in office, did adopt and extend liberalized trade notwithstanding their 1988 opposition.

More important, it assured that the Tories in general and Brian Mulroney in particular -- historic opponents and reluctant converts to free trade -- became inexorably linked to the deal. So successful was this approach that the Mulroney government passed the free-trade agreement as its first and only bill in the following session.

That's why the Tories were livid about losing control of the election agenda. To prevent this from happening again, the Mulroney government passed a Draconian gag law.
In other words, political parties don't want to ban independent election advertising because it upsets a fair balance during elections. They want to curb such spending because it doesn't upset the balance, denying them the advantages that the Elections Act is supposed to provide.

Politicians seek these types of advantages all the time. Successive federal governments have used elections law to set high candidate thresholds for small parties, to expropriate minor party assets, to control broadcast times, to gerrymander riding boundaries, and to restrict publication of opinion polls by the media.

Only through court rulings have these provisions been exposed for what they are: arbitrary and unconstitutional provisions that confer advantages to the major parties at the expense of potential competitors and citizens' fundamental freedoms. It has only been through the courts that the famed "democratic legitimacy" of our elections has been preserved.

In short, the judges' activism is not resolved by the politicians' supremacy. Solutions can only be found in the classical theory of liberal democracy -- checks and balances of institutional power under limited government.

Unfortunately, this is something neither our Charter nor our Parliament provides.

Tweeting the NDP

Here's a sure sign I had too much time on my hands yesterday. I actually watched the NDP convention and tweeted some of my observations.

In case you missed any, here are my top Tweets:

• Saw a movie in the video store called "The Neverending Story". I thought it was a documentary on the NDP convention.

• At news conference, Mulcair reacts to charges he has a temper by beating two reporters to death.

• During victory speech Mulcair expresses surprise: Thought he was running for leadership of Conservative Party! #ndpldr

• Next election will answer burning question: Who is more unlikable -- Harper or Mulcair? #cdnpoli

• News flash: Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled NDP convention a form of torture. #ndpldr

• Two of Muclair's drummers drop dead from exhaustion.

• If Mulcair wins first action will be to declare Ed Broadbent an Enemy of the Revolution! #ndpldr

• NDP accomplishes the impossible: Makes Canadian politics even more boring. #ndpldr

• Due to computer problems, NDP now says leadership will be decided by best 2 out of 3, rock, paper, scissors competition. #ndpldr

• NDP online computer now signing "Daisy, Daisy, tell me your answer true" as officials frantically deactivate circuits. #ndpldr

• Fed up with voting snafu, NDP now taking a different tack: Winning leadership candidate will be the one with most Facebook "likes".#ndpldr

• Latest NDP vote yields bizarre result: Thomas Mulcair is now president of Spain! #ndpldr

• "Voting problems" a diversion. NDP's real plan is obvious: Keep delaying vote until Stephen Harper retires. #ndplr

• Maybe the Liberals were right to acclaim Michael Ignatieff?

• At the rate this NDP vote is preceding, the winner will also be the oldest party leader in Canadian history.

• The good news for the NDP is nobody in Canada is actually watching the convention.

• Prediction: No matter who wins today, starting tomorrow media will suggest the new leader is a serious threat to Harper.

• In a desperate attempt to fill air time CBC is arranging a boxing match between Peter Mansbridge and Ezra Levant.

• Too bad there isn't a "refresh" button for entire NDP convention.#cdnpoli

• NDP voting mix ups leading to a crisis: media running out of ways to fill air time. #ndpldr

• My idea for new voting system: Piece of paper, a pencil and an X.#ndpldr

• NDP votes to merge their computer with Liberal voting software.

• NDP voting problems causing chaos in CPC headquarters as they frantically work to update attack ads. #ndpldr

• Thanks to online voting problems at NDP convention, Stephen Harper now leads on the second ballot.

• Syd Ryan today said NDP delegates should stop Mulcair by throwing support behind Joseph Stalin. #ndpldr

The New New Democratic Party

For the first time since 1960, the New Democratic Party is really new.

And when I say “new” I mean “different.’

In electing the fiery Thomas Mulcair their leader, the New Democrats dramatically changed the nature of their party.

They have gone from Tommy Douglas, a populist socialist, to Ed Broadbent, an intellectual socialist, to Jack Layton, an urban socialist to Mulcair, a tough, politically savvy, ambitious, street fighter.

See the difference?

The stodgy, class warfare, Solidarity Forever, NDP is gone forever, relegated to the dustbin of history. From now on the New Democrats are less about fomenting socialist revolution and more about winning votes. It has gone from an ideological party to a “We want to be in power party”.

You could sense the change at the party’s leadership convention. Previous NDP conventions were always one part union hall meeting, one part religious revival and one part hippie festival. By contrast, this convention was all politics, all business. It was essentially a generic political convention, except with orange signs.

And uppermost on the minds of NDP voters was one question. And it wasn't who can best promote a union boss agenda, it was who offers the best chance of  beating Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

On paper at least, the answer was Mulcair. It didn’t matter that he was a newcomer to the party, it didn’t matter that party elder statesman Ed Broadbent had denounced him, it didn’t matter that he wanted to dilute socialist principles – all that mattered was Mulcair matched up best against Harper.

For one thing, Mulcair had the best chance of holding onto the party’s newly won bastion in Quebec, for another he might appeal to non-traditional NDP voters, and for another he could take on Harper in a gutter fight. In short, cold political calculations won out over ideology.

Congratulations NDP, you have now attained the rank of a serious, mainstream political contender.

And all it cost you was your soul.

Media Falling for Tory Trick

The architects of the latest Conservative anti-Rae attack ad must be exchanging high-fives.

After all, their devious plan is working to perfection – Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae is getting tons of good ink.

This is great news for the Conservatives because, as I recently noted, the Tory attack ad was not meant to hurt Rae but to help him.

To sum it up: Any Conservative attack on Rae from the right, will undoubtedly rally leftist voters to his defence. This would in turn undermine the NDP.

It’s an old political trick.

So the Conservatives must be pleased to see the media help their cause.

The Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson, for instance, wrote the Tories are attacking Rae because they are afraid.

As he put it, “The Conservatives are convinced Mr. Rae will lead the Liberal Party into the next election–an increasingly safe assumption. And they fear him more than they fear whomever the New Democrats choose on Saturday.”

Meanwhile, the Vancouver Sun's Barbara Yaffe writes:

Rae is a guy with an enviable CV: a law degree from the University of Toronto and a PhD from Oxford in England. He’s a Rhodes Scholar, an officer of both the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario, a past chair of the Royal Conservatory and the Toronto Symphony. He has a suitably folksy side as well, with a website labelling him “a family man, author and fisherman.”
By contrast, Harper, with a Master’s degree in economics from the University of Calgary, has more pedestrian credentials.

And if columnists are thinking this way, it's probable many rank and file Liberals are thinking that way too: If Harper is attacking Rae, he must fear Rae, ergo we should support Rae.

The Tories must have known it would play out this way -- in fact, they were counting on it.

They certainly didn't run the ad because they feared Rae; indeed the very notion is ludicrous. It's like suggesting Hulk Hogan is afraid of Woody Allen.

What’s to fear? I hate to be blunt, but Rae is a past-his-prime politician who leads a third place, cash-starved, intellectually-bankrupt, down-in-the polls political party that lacks a regional base.

Yeah, I’m sure Harper is just shaking in his boots.

And does anybody seriously believe Rae’s academic credentials make him a threat to Harper? If that was the case Harvard-educated Michael Ignatieff would have won in a landslide.

If anything, it's more likely Harper and the Tories would dearly love to see Rae stay as Liberal leader.

And so when Ibbitson and Yaffe and other writers praise Rae to the high heavens, it’s music to Tory ears.

What's really behind those new anti-Rae ads?

The Conservative Party is targeting Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae with an attack ad.



This probably strikes a lot of people as odd. After all, on the surface going negative against the leader of a third place party, three years before an election, makes zero strategic sense. So at best the Tory strategy seem like a waste of resources and at worst like mindless, nastiness.

But what if the anti-Rae ad really isn't about hurting Rae? What if it's really designed to hurt the NDP?  Well, if that's the case then the Tory attack ad makes perfect sense. And indeed, I believe that is the case.

But. you might be asking, how could an ad going after a Liberal leader possibly harm the NDP?

It's simple. By attacking Rae from the right, as they do in this ad, the Tories are likely hoping left-leaning voters will rally around the embattled Liberal leader. The Conservatives, in other words, want leftists to react thusly: "Hey, if that right-wing, reactionary, robo-calling Prime Minister is so much against Rae, them I am for Rae!"

It's psychology 101.

Naturally, if this ploy works the net result will be to drive "progressive" voters away from the NDP and towards the Liberals. Hence, the anti-Rae ad is really about strengthening the weaker Liberals and weakening the stronger NDP.

And given that the NDP leadership race is coming up this weekend, what better time for the Conservatives to pull such a stunt?

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.

My Earey Experience

The job of being a TV pundit really isn’t all that hard; you usually just smile into a camera and answer questions with what you hope are plausible-sounding answers.

But when things go wrong, televised punditry can turn into the stuff of nightmares.

Recently, for instance, I endured just such a trauma while appearing on one of those pundit TV panels.

It all started in typical fashion. About 15 minutes before I was to go on the air a producer took me to a small little room in the studio.

After hooking me up with a lapel mike and an earpiece the producer left me on my own, sitting at one of those newsroom-style desks. The camera I was to look at was remote controlled, so there was not even a cameraman to keep me company. I was truly alone.

There was nothing to do but wait. So I took advantage of my alone time to focus on preparing for my upcoming interview – I sat up straight, made sure my tie wasn’t crooked and most importantly I started to imagine all the things that could go wrong.

Would I blurt out something stupid on the air, would I mangle my words, would I get upstaged by a fellow panelist ….or would my ear piece pop out?

As I pondered this last possibility, I decided just to be on the safe side to cram the plastic little doohickey deeper and deeper into my ear canal.  

As I pressed it in, I could hear the reassuring feed from the show, my only contact with the outside world …. but then suddenly the sound abruptly stopped. I was for all intents and purposes, deaf.

I realized with horror that thanks to my fidgeting with the earpiece it had become disconnected from its wire. I had broken it! And I was going to be on live TV in just a few short minutes, unable to hear the host or anybody else. There was nobody to help me.

Disaster loomed.

Fortunately, as a veteran of countless TV appearances, I knew exactly what to do under these circumstances: I panicked.

I frantically dug out the plastic earpiece, fearing all the time that I would suddenly appear on TV with my index finger stuck in the side of my head.

Luckily I managed to retrieve it before the red light on the camera lit up. But time was running out. I quickly re-attached the wire, and once again I could hear the show.

Success!

Or at least partial success. My repair job was delicate to say the least. After re-inserting the earpiece, I quickly realized that if I made any slight movement of my head the wire would once again detach.

To keep everything in place, I had to keep perfectly still.

Before I could fret about it too much, I was on the air.

They say the secret to appearing on TV is to look relaxed. Well I must have looked about as relaxed as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Instead of focusing on coming up with witty comments about possible reforms to old age pensions, all I was thinking was: “Please little sound wire, don’t come loose.”

And the wire did stay in, but unfortunately near the end of my segment, while answering a question on the future prospects of the NDP, the whole earpiece plopped out.

So as gracefully and nonchalantly as possible I placed it back trying all the while not to look like a complete dork.

In my mind, it was a humiliating catastrophe.

In fact, I am sure when my on-air segment was over, the viewers saw me not as a political genius, but as a grim-faced, stiff-necked, nervous-looking guy who had a piece of plastic fall out of his ear.

But on the bright side, I was still on TV!

The Queen of Sillyland

Sometimes I get the feeling certain Canadian political journalists don’t actually live in Canada. Instead, it seems they live in a faraway place I call Sillyland.

I imagine it as a nice little country that has only one ironclad law: Anyone who lives there must write columns on Canadian politics that make absolutely no sense.

And in my mind, the Queen of Sillyland must be Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley.

I say that because she recently came out with a column that was silly in the extreme.

First off, her column pointed out that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a war-mongering, environment-destroying, big corporation-loving, right-wing zealot.

Of course, there is nothing new about this.

Open just about any newspaper to the editorial pages on any day of the week and you will see the exact same comments.

But what sets this column apart is who Riley blames for what she thinks is Canada’s sorry political state.

Why did supposedly left-leaning Canadians elect as Prime Minster a man who the media keeps telling us is a cross between Genghis Khan, Darth Vader and Benito Mussolini?

And how does Harper continue to stay atop the polls no matter how much he angers Margaret Atwood and David Suzuki?

Well, Riley doesn’t fault the media. As she puts it, “the media aren't to blame. We hector from the sidelines (guilty!), or, more usefully, uncover hypocrisies and small scandals.”

Nor does the problem rest with the Liberals or NDP. Writes Riley: “Opposition MPs - notably Bob Rae, Charlie Angus, Elizabeth May; but others, too - advance persuasive arguments, based on evidence, de-bunking Conservative crime policy, and other initiatives.”

So who is at fault for keeping Harper in power?

Well, according to Riley, the real villain is you. Yes that’s right, you and all other Canadians are to blame for Harper’s puzzling success.

The problem is rampant apathy, or as she puts it: “Many have given up - in cynicism or despair. They turn their back on politics, don't bother to vote, even imagine it is fashionable to remain aloof. They claim all politicians are the same, but they aren't. They claim it doesn't matter which party holds power, but it does.”

Translation: Canadians are stupid.

According to Riley if we were smarter we would have elected a Coalition government made up of arrogant Liberals, wacky socialists and Quebec separatists!

To bolster her case she also quotes NDP leadership contender Nathan Cullen who says the Tories are purposely cultivating public indifference.

"It is a deliberate strategy to turn people off," says Cullen. "He either bores people to death, or uses wedge politics. People don't see themselves in the conversation."

This from a man who is part of a leadership campaign that’s so dull it even makes Harper seem charismatic by comparison.

Of course, there is an alternative theory that Riley doesn’t even bother to mention: Maybe, just maybe, Canadians elected the Conservatives to a majority and continue to support them in the polls because perhaps they actually support the government’s policies.

OK that might be too radical and heretical a notion for Riley to accept.

So how about this idea: If Canadians are as apathetic as Riley maintains, then perhaps it’s because the NDP and Liberals are not offering voters much in the way of a credible alternative to Harper. I mean just because Riley finds Liberal and NDP arguments “persuasive” doesn’t mean voters should as well.

Yet what makes Riley’s column truly and unforgivably silly is the part where she writes: “If Occupiers had simply voted en masse in May, we wouldn't have a majority Conservative government today.”

Really?

How does Riley know this? Is she some sort of mystical pollster who can predict hypothetical election results?

Plus, how many Canadian Occupiers were there: 5,000, 10,000, 50,000?

I am no statistician but considering the size of the total voting population, the Occupiers are a drop in the bucket, especially since they are scattered across the country.

So it’s extremely doubtful Occupiers voting “en masse” would have changed last year’s election outcome to any significant degree.

And given that the Occupy Movement lacked a single coherent message, who would they have voted for anyway: the Libertarian Party, the NDP, the Greens, the Marxist-Trotskyite-Anarchist Party?

It just doesn’t make sense.

But then I shouldn’t be too hard on Riley. After all, her column will likely win a Pulitzer Prize in Sillyland.

The NDP’s Dilemma

There are people in this country who find the NDP leadership race fascinating.

 

That’s good news for the NDP.

 

The bad news, however, is the people who find it fascinating are also the same people who enjoy watching paint dry.

 

Meanwhile, everybody else in Canada is pretty much bored out of theirs skulls with the race.

 

Of course, you can’t really blame this state of affairs on the NDP leadership candidates. After all, it’s not as if they are doing anything wrong. In fact, the leadership race is unfolding exactly as it should according to Civics textbooks.  

 

The candidates are sticking to the issues, engaging in polite debate and refraining from any sort of “mud slinging.”

 

But ironically that’s the problem. Well-mannered, respectful political campaigns that stick to issues are by their very nature dull affairs.

 

And in politics dullness kills.

 

For one thing, boring campaigns make it difficult to attract media attention. That’s because the media really isn’t interested in issues or policies. What does interest political journalists is what I like to call the “politics of politics.”

 

In other words, the media cares about “horse race” stuff: polling numbers, who is ahead, who is behind and who has the momentum?

 

And the media also likes conflict and emotion; this is why negative attack ads always make news.

 

In short, a political race will get more column space in newspapers and hits on TV, if it has the drama of a “TV Reality” show.

 

So far, the NDP race has all the excitement of a chess match.

 

And this turns off more than just the media.

 

A dull campaign also makes it harder to mobilize party supporters. Think about it. Aside from hard-core party partisans, who wants to trudge to a gymnasium on a cold January night just to watch politicians argue over the importance of infrastructure funding?

 

At any rate, one NDP leadership contender, Brian Topp, recognizes the dullness problem.

 

Speaking recently to the media Topp declared: “If New Democrats are going to win, we can't be boring." He also suggested that unless the race gets a little spicier, Canadians will tune out and the party will suffer in the next election.

 

But here’s the dilemma the NDP faces: the party could also suffer in the next election if the leadership race actually does get spicier.

 

Consider, for instance, this scenario: Let’s say certain contenders in the race, after consulting their own polls, determine they are falling behind. Let’s further suppose they have no chance of boosting their support.

 

What do they do?

 

Well, the answer is obvious: attack the front-runner.

 

This might sound crass but it just makes sense; if you can’t increase your support, the only alternative left is to drive your opponent’s numbers down. And the only way to drive your opponent’s numbers down is to go negative.

 

We see this dynamic at work right now in the United States Republican presidential primary race, where Republican nominees have been hammering the front-runner Mitt Romney.

 

Watch for the same thing to happen in the NDP leadership race.

 

Mind you, all the candidates will deny this; they will talk about the need to remain positive and united. But sooner or later the instinct for political survival will kick in and the gloves will come off.

 

And when that happens things will escalate fast, with each side attacking and counter-attacking. Before you know it the NDP leadership race will resemble a UFC brawl.

 

That could cause a lot of wounds and bitterness.

 

But on the plus side, it will also generate lots of excitement and plenty of news coverage.

(This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Hill Times)