John Dobson RIP

I was greatly saddened to learn of the passing of John Dobson.

He was a great man and a true champion of freedom.

A successful entrepreneur, John could have comfortably spent his life concentrating on his various business ventures.

But he chose not to do so.

He understood the importance of promoting and protecting the values and principles that underpin the free market system.

And so throughout his life, he generously and tirelessly supported efforts across the country to foster Canada's entrepreneurial spirit and to defend free market ideals.

It's hard to think of a better legacy.

With his passing the business world has lost a leader; free marketers have lost an ally, and I have lost a good friend.

Protecting Public Safety One Smashed Door at a Time

In this increasingly dangerous world, it’s nice to know Canadians can rest secure in the knowledge that RCMP officers are out there,  patrolling our streets, ready on a moment’s notice to break into our homes and steal our property.

In fact, the RCMP recently performed a little break and entry action in High River, Alberta, a town which had been evacuated due to massive flooding.

It seems some of the town’s gun owners had left their firearms in what police call “unsecure locations,” such as inside their securely locked homes.

Now you might ask, what’s so bad about that? The town is evacuated; the guns are out of sight, behind locked doors. Shouldn’t be a problem, right?

Ha, only a “gun nut” would say that!

As any rational and reasonable person knows that leaving guns in an empty locked house, situated in an empty town, is an invitation to anarchy!

Imagine, for instance, if militant household pests, like termites or carpenter ants, decided to arm themselves with those unguarded weapons.

Just think of what that would do to your extermination bills!

Luckily, however, before anything horrible like that could happen, the RCMP – official motto: “Private property rights? Never heard of ‘em” – forcibly broke into several High River homes, where they proceeded to grab guns as if they were donuts.

This, of course, was done in the name of preserving what the police like to call “public safety.”

Yes, some bleeding hearts bemoaned the RCMP action as heavy-handed, others even called it an “act of aggression” against gun owners, but if you ask me, we need more of this kind of aggressive, pre-emptive police work.

After all, there are probably millions of locked homes all across the country jam packed with privately owned, so-called “legal” items that, if they ever fell into the wrong hands, i.e. law-abiding citizens, could potentially threaten civilization as we know it.

Indeed, given the seriousness of this locked home issue, perhaps it’s time to create specially trained police squads whose only job will be to ransack arbitrarily selected homes, in order to find  any “public safety” threatening dangers.

And believe me, when the government puts its mind to it, it can find lots of things that threaten our public safety.

Indeed, here’s just a preliminary list of things the L.P.S. (Looting Police Squads) would be on the look out for as they root through people’s closets, kitchens and bedrooms:

• Bottled water (Don’t let the benign appearance of bottled water fool you. According to environmentalists, water bottles, if left unchecked, could end human life on earth, leading to our planet being ruled by mutants, super intelligent robots or perhaps by apes.)
  
  
• Bicycles – (These would be returned to owners, but only if they can provide proof they own government-certified bicycle helmets.)
  
  
• Dogs that in anyway resemble a pit bull.
  
  
• All unhealthy or “junk” food items that contains such things as trans-fat, starchy carbohydrates, sodium or glucose. (And God help the person found harboring a Happy Meal Toy!)

• Cigarettes left within twenty meters of a match.
  
  
• All books and magazines written by non-Canadian authors (a threat to our cultural sovereignty.)
  
  
• Sporting equipment that could also double as weapons, i.e. baseball bats, darts, hockey sticks and, of course, most dangerous of all – dodge balls.

Admittedly, all this might seem like a little bit of an infringement on our Charter guaranteed rights and freedoms, but let’s face it, if the government and the police won’t infringe on our rights to protect us from ourselves, who will?

It’s like I always say … sorry. ..I have to go … somebody’s battering down my front door. 

Ontario PCs Need to Keep Message Simple

Given that Ontario is in a tense minority government situation these days, we can expect constant, low level partisan warfare to take place between the three main political parties.

And sometimes not so low level.

In fact, the Ontario PCs have launched a pretty big salvo against Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne in the form of a new TV “attack” ad.

Of course, this has the Liberals all in a huff and they are denouncing the Tory ad as “negative”, but, truth be told, they really have no need for concern.

The fact is, while the Tory spot is making a lot of noise in media circles, it won’t do the Liberals much harm.

That's because while the ad is right strategically, it’s wrong stylistically.

Now before we get to the ad in question, let’s consider what message the Tories need to get out.

I suspect their own internal polls are telling the PCs that Ontario voters are ready for a change in government and that they don’t like former Premier Dalton McGuinty.

That means the formula for a Tory ad should look something like this: Wynne=McGuinty & Wynne ≠ Change.

And yes, that’s basically the message the Tories are getting out in their new ad, which declares in the first few seconds “Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne: Nothing has changed.”

However, the big problem with this ad is it crams way too much information into a 30 second spot.

Just consider what it tells us in the span of half a minute:

• Wynne co-chaired McGuinty’s campaign
• Wynne oversaw staff who called the shots on the power plant cancellation
• Wynne signed a document authorizing the cancellation
• Wynne claimed the cost of the cancellation was $40 million
• Wynne knew the cost would be higher
• Wynne will mean reckless spending and higher taxes

That’s a lot of stuff to absorb! Too much. You need a scorecard to keep track of it all! Consequently, the Tories risk overwhelming and confusing viewers; there’s just nothing really for people to latch onto.

Plus the ad lacks context. Other than saying the gas plant cancellation cost more than expected, it doesn’t really explain why this should make voters angry. You can’t assume voters are up on the story. You need to lay it out.

In short, the PCs are on the right strategic track with this spot, but they need to develop a more focused message, with a lot less clutter.

Good ads are simple ads.

  

Indeed, the best part of the current spot are the last three seconds, which feature a picture of Wynne and McGuinty together, while the words “No Change” are stamped on the screen.

That’s all the Tories really need to say, over and over again.

Scandals are Non-Partisan

If the Duffy/Wright/Senate controversy has proven one thing, it’s that scandals are a non-partisan affair.

This news might shock many Conservative Party partisans who were certain that greed and arrogance were traits that formed part of the Liberal Party's DNA.

Indeed, Conservative Party dogma was that only Tories, free as they were of Liberal taint, could provide honest and accountable government.

Well, the Duffy affair has blown that theory to smithereens.

And that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

To paraphrase Friedrich Hayek, honesty and integrity in government are not a function of which party is in power but of the power over economic decisions possessed
by those in government.

In other words the Liberals had corruption problems while in power, not because they were Liberals but because they succumbed to the corrupting influence of government.

That same influence has now infected the Conservatives.

My point is, when it comes to corruption, the real bad guy is government, or rather the power of government.

As long as government has the power to influence and direct our economy, corruption will be inevitable.

It doesn’t matter who is in power.

That’s why Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s stern warning in response to the Duffy controversy, that “anyone who wishes to use and have public office for their own benefit should change their plans or better yet, leave this room” is simply empty rhetoric.

Decrees and rules and regulations won’t halt those in government from wrong doing.

The only true way to bring about cleaner government is to reduce its scope and its power.

The less influence government has over our lives, the less temptation there will be to do wrong.

In Defence of (internal) Polls

Canada’s political pollsters got it spectacularly wrong in British Columbia and in Alberta.

And so now many pundits and media types are questioning the credibility of the polling industry.

But before anybody relegates the science of polling to the same category as astrology, it should be pointed out that there’s a huge difference between the free public domain polls the media likes to cite and internal, private polling.

The fact is, the public polls we read about in newspapers usually only tell a superficial and partial story; they reflect what people are saying, but not necessarily what they are thinking.

I know that sounds odd, so to illustrate my point consider this imaginary dialogue between a pollster and a Mr. Smith:

Pollster: Do TV ads have any influence on your buying behavior?

Mr. Smith: No. TV ads do not influence me in anyway.

Pollster: What brand of toothpaste do you buy?

Mr. Smith: I always buy Colgate toothpaste.

Pollster: Why?

Mr. Smith: Because everybody knows it’s the number one toothpaste recommended by dentists.

So Mr. Smith says ads don’t influence him, but clearly they do.

Yes, this is a made up example, but it demonstrates the problem pollsters face: people often hold contradictory or confusing attitudes, especially when it comes to politics.

This is because the vast majority of voters don’t follow the political scene all that closely, hence their political views are often tentative and subject to change.

For instance, back in 1988 when I was working for the National Citizens Coalition, we commissioned a poll which showed that a significant number of Canadians supported then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, enough support that he could actually get elected Prime Minister.

Voters, the poll told us, liked Broadbent because they saw him as more “honest” than the other leaders.

To us -- the NCC is a pro-free market group -- this was bad news.

Of course, this is the kind of information you get in a public poll.

However, our internal poll also revealed Broadbent’s potential Achilles heel: many of the respondents who said they supported Broadbent, also opposed the NDP’s socialist policies.

In other words there was a disconnect; voters liked Broadbent, but they didn’t like his platform; they didn’t even know his platform.

Thanks to our poll, we were able to craft a strategy to undermine Broadbent’s support.

We simply pointed out to Canadians that while Broadbent might be a nice guy, he’s also promoting a dangerous and “scary” left-wing agenda.

By the way, that’s exactly the same strategy the BC Liberals used to successfully degrade the BC NDP, which had been riding high in the polls.

And I’m sure, like us, the BC Liberals adopted this strategy based on internal polling data.

My point is, understanding and analyzing a political poll is a complicated business. It’s more than just asking Canadians who they think will make the best Prime Minister.

To adequately study a single poll means investigating how respondents answered 30 questions or more, which means going over hundreds of pages of cross tabs.

And this is where pollsters earn their money; they wade through a morass of data to find that issue or attitude their clients can successfully exploit.

In short, despite its bad rap, the statistical science which underpins opinion polling works, which is why political parties will continue to rely on their own internal polls.

Public opinion polls, on the other hand, should be taken with a grain of salt.

That’s the true lesson of British Columbia and Alberta.

Are Intellectuals at War with Reality?

Canadian left-wing intellectuals have a habit of saying the darndest things.

And most of the darndest things they say are associated with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government.

Some intellectuals, for instance, like to suggest Harper is on the verge of establishing a reactionary Star Wars-style military dictatorship, while others fear he will turn Canada into an Evangelical Theocracy, where citizens will be forced to worship an Alberta-spawned deity carved out of oil sands.

But that’s not the worst of it.

What really seems to get their collective academic knickers in a knot, is their growing belief that Harper is “anti-science.”

What’s the left wing intellectual proof for this charge?

Has Harper burned astronomers at the stake? Has he banned technology? Has he imprisoned Bill Nye “The Science Guy”?

Nope.

It seems one of Harper’s main crimes against science is he has cut back funding to certain government-sponsored research projects.

Now before you lose any sleep over this, it should be pointed out that reducing government funding for “science” will not necessarily plunge Canada into a Dark Age of superstition and ignorance.

In fact, lots of scientific progress actually occurred on our planet before government funding for academics was even invented.

Important technological advances for civilization like the wheel, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the steam engine and Playstation 3, were all created without government handouts.

That’s not to say government funded research isn’t important. After all, thanks to government money we were able to create a useful gadget that’s made the world a much better and happier place. It’s called the Atom Bomb.

Still many academics are concerned that Harper’s cutbacks will hurt the environment.

They pine for the days, I suppose, when the Jean Chretien Liberals poured unlimited amounts of money on scientists, while allowing them to dictate government policy.

Indeed, I’m sure it was Canada’s top scientists who came up with the brilliant idea for the Chretien government’s main environmental initiative known as the “One Tonne Challenge” program.

This program, which surely must have been based on “evidence-based” research and rigorous scientific analysis, concluded the best way to reduce Canada’s “greenhouse gas emissions” was to pay CBC comedian Rick Mercer lots of tax dollars to star in Kyoto Accord TV ads.

Anyway, in an effort to restore those glory days of scientific reason intellectuals are starting to emerge from their Ivory Towers to convince the unwashed masses (those who lack post-graduate degrees) that more taxes must be spent on science.

Just recently, in fact, close to one hundred intellectuals made their case in a letter to the editor to the Montreal Gazette.

And what a letter!

It paints a scary portrait of what a “dark” place Canada would become if the government doesn’t immediately divert tax dollars from things like health care and national defence so they can used to subsidize academic pursuits like history, literary criticism, philosophy, political science, anthropology, critical legal studies, political economy and feminist studies.

How dark would Canada become if these “sciences” are not properly funded?

Well get this: we would be unable, says the letter, to confirm things like Canada’s “long-standing colonialism in dealing with the First Nations” or the “patriarchal dividend” in employment or the “scapegoating of racialized immigrants.”

(Note: You probably have to be a government funded intellectual to understand what “patriarchal dividend” or “racialized immigrants”actually means.)

But wait there’s more. Harper’s war on science, the letter writers warn us, will also mean Canadians won’t have access to “data-based interpretations … that document elite, corporate, European and male abuse.”

Darn those elite corporate European males!

The letter also suggests the cutting of science funding will cause widespread “de-gendering”, which I must admit sounds awfully painful.

And finally, the letter writers bewail how the Harper government is embracing “reactionary commemorative practices, to militarize patriotic mythology.”

I’m not certain, but I think they are referring to all those War of 1812 events … you know the ones where middle aged guys in redcoats shoot muskets into the air.

At any rate, the bottom line for these intellectuals is that “in face of global capitalism’s mounting crisis, critical interrogation of social phenomena, causes and consequences is urgently needed.”

Translation: Only a massive influx of government cash will cure Canada’s drastically dangerous shortage of literary criticism

Clearly, a lot of superior intellectual brain-power went into writing this letter to the editor, yet I somehow doubt it will generate much public support for a social “science” crusade.

I suspect Canadians are more worried about how they will pay for their mortgages and about the price of groceries than they are about “patriarchal dividends”.

If anything, this letter might cause Canadians to demand these guys get even less money.

But then again, maybe I’m suffering from de-gendering at the hands of Canada’s elite, corporate, European males.

Is the Media a Bully?

There's a bible verse that asks, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

That's a good question for all those media types wringing their hands over those Conservative Party ads and flyers which target Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

We keep hearing from columnists, reporters and editorial writers about how the campaign is an awful outrage.

A recent news story, for instance, wondered out loud if the Conservative campaign was actually designed to subconsciously plant doubts in the minds of voters about Trudeau’s manliness.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest the Tory attack is “bullying.”

Now I am not going to defend or try to explain the Tory strategy; instead I’d like to point out how the media isn't exactly as pure as the driven snow when it comes to attacking a politician’s masculinity or looks.

In fact, if anything, the media is often obsessed with a politician’s image.

Just consider how media types totally embraced Trudeau after he thrashed Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau in a boxing match.

It was Trudeau’s toughness, his martial appearance, his talent with his fists that made him a media star, not his policy ideas.

Indeed, for the media that boxing match has achieved an almost mythic status.

The Huffington Post’s Althia Raj even made that fight the defining narrative of her Trudeau biography.

And just in case anyone missed the point, the cover of her ebook features a cartoon drawing of a heroic looking Trudeau wearing boxing gloves.

One might wonder if the media is trying to subconsciously plant the idea in the minds of voters that Trudeau is an alpha-male?

Certainly that would help the Liberal leader politically, since martial prowess appeals to that primitive part of our brain which still thinks its living in a prehistoric world, a world that needs physically strong leaders to protect us from marauding raiders and hungry saber tooth tigers.

But more to my point is that just as the media will paint politicians they like as warriors, they will also paint  politicians they don’t like as wimps.

Think of how, during the 1972 federal election, the media published an unflattering photo of Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield dropping a football.

Many consider it one of the top “gaffes” in Canadian political history.

But was it also a case of the media subconsciously planting doubts in the minds of voters as to Stanfield’s masculinity?

If he can’t catch a football he must be a nerd, nerds are weak, weak people are bad leaders.

Or how about the time the CBC’s Rick Mercer launched a petition during the 2000 federal election to get Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day to change his first name to “Doris”?

Was that funny or was it bullying? Was the subtext of Mercer's "joke" that Day was something less than a man?

Certainly it got voters laughing at Day.

Nor is Prime Minister Stephen Harper immune. Remember the mockery over his cowboy outfit? And the Huffington Post and journalists on Twitter once got a real “chuckle” over how Harper wore a hat.

Isn't that like school yard bullies picking on a kid because of  his or her clothing? I might even suggest the subtext of such attacks is that people who wear funny clothes are oddballs and thus are unfit to be our leaders.

And more recently, the media has taken to openly mocking Toronto Mayor Rob Ford because of his weight.

The Toronto Star, for instance, once posted a video on its site of a woman laughing at Ford as he ordered a meal at a KFC restaurant.

Is that cyber-bullying? Is it right to mock a man because he doesn't have Trudeau’s physical appearance? Does obesity make you less of a leader?

So it seems the media is more than willing to mock and degrade a person if it suits their purpose.

Now none of this is to suggest we should feel sorry for Ford or Day or Stanfield or Harper. Like it or not, mockery and attacks have always been a part of democratic politics; that’s why it’s not a business for people with thin skins.

Yet if those who work in the media are going to throw stones at negativity in politics, they should at least realize they live in a glass house.

Coyne, Negative ads and Freedom

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne has consistently (and rightly) castigated the Conservative government for discarding its conservative ideals.

Yet Coyne himself is passionately advancing a cause which would ultimately undermine those very same principles.

I am talking about his stance against so-called negative political ads, which Coyne despises with something akin to religious fervor. 

In a recent column, for instance, he declared that negative ads “pollute debate and coarsen the culture,” which ironically is an awfully negative way for him to make his point.

At any rate, although Coyne doubts these ads actually change people’s minds, he nevertheless wants to impose government regulations to discourage their use.

Why?

Because he doesn’t like their inflammatory “tone.”

As a result, he favours forcing political party leaders to narrate their ads.

The theory behind this idea is that a leader would be reluctant to voice negativity.

As Coyne put it, “If any of this filth came out of their own mouths, they’d have to be accountable for it. Their public standing would suffer. Indeed, they’d sound ridiculous.”

Coyne also asserts such a provision would not limit free speech, since politicians “Could still say what they liked. They’d just have to own it.”

Me, I’m not so sure about that. After all, having the government decide who can narrate an  ad is, in my view at least, an infringement on free expression.

What's more, it would give one party an advantage over the other depending on which leader has the better voice.

Can you imagine Jean Chretien narrating an ad?

But let's set such issues aside.

Would this result in our election debates getting more positive and more reasoned?

Don’t bet on it.

For one thing, political parties would just intensify their negative attacks through avenues besides TV and radio. They would, for instance, send out more nasty messages via emails, direct mail pieces, and robo-calls.

And by the way, such “under the radar” attacks are usually far more vicious than the TV variety.

Also Coyne’s plan would not stop “Third Parties” from running their own negative ads between elections on behalf of political parties.

Would any of this lead Coyne to argue for restrictions on partisan groups and for limiting other forms of political communication?

I am not sure it would, but it illustrates the danger of even minor infractions on freedom; when they don’t work, they often lead to more draconian measures down the road.

Indeed, Green Party leader Elizabeth May is already arguing for a complete ban on all political advertising during elections.

Now let me say, I fully understand that May and Coyne’s views on negativity are shared by many.

But we should also remember that democracy works best when there is a free market place of competing ideas and arguments.

And any attempt to restrict or muzzle or control free speech distorts that market and undermines democratic debate.

That’s why it’s better, in my view, to allow negativity than to censor or regulate opinion.

Besides, why do we need to control or ban political ads, when we can simply let the free market decide?

If negative ads are “corrosive”, then Canadians won’t buy their messages and political parties won’t use them.

It’s that simple.

In fact, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has vowed to stay positive because he says Canadians are sick and tired of negativity.

So why do we need nanny-state-style laws to control politicians or to protect voters?

In the meantime, people like Coyne who object to negative ads on aesthetic grounds, already have a way to deal with them.

Whenever they see one on TV, they can just turn the channel.

Is Trudeau Anti-Fragile?

There’s an odd thing about political columnists.

Although they are usually bright people with highly informed views about politics, they generally tend to have a blind spot when it comes to negative attack ads.

Not only do they generally dislike such ads (National Post columnist Andrew Coyne calls them pollution) but they also don’t understand what makes them effective.

A case in point is the recently released Conservative Partyads which feature clips of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau performing a mock striptease and executing a dramatic operatic bow.

These ads opened to almost universally poor reviews.

National Post editor Jon Kay called them “disappointing;” Post Media columnist Michael Den Tandt said the ads marked a “new low” and that they were “mean-spirited, dishonest and incompetent”; while the Toronto Star’s Tim Harper predicted the Conservatives won’t “find any traction in mocking Justin Trudeau’s pretend striptease.”

At the root of their criticism is the idea that Trudeau, to use the Nicholas Taleb’s term, is “anti-fragile”, that is Conservative attacks will only make him stronger.

As Den Tandt put it, “Trudeau has further branded himself as a ‘positive’ force, adopting the mantle of democratic reformer and someone who intends to ‘do politics differently.’ The more savagely his opponents attack him, the more he will point to their tactics as proof of the truth of his narrative.”

And the Star’s Tim Harper noted, “Every time he is criticized for being a celebrity, his political stock is sure to rise.”

Now if Den Tandt and Harper are correct then the Conservatives and the New Democrats are indeed in trouble; a politician who only grows stronger from attacks would be a formidable opponent.

And yes, politicians can be “anti-fragile”. Take Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. The more the left-leaning Toronto Star attacked him during the last mayoralty campaign, the more it mobilized and energized his base.

Yet, it’s also true that every politician has a weakness and every weakness can be exploited.

The way I see it, Trudeau has three main weaknesses: a) he lacks political savvy, b) he is inexperienced at the leadership level, and c) he is known more for his dramatic flair than for his intellect.

The Conservative ads not only masterfully exploit each of these weaknesses, they also manage to do so with strong visuals and just as importantly with humor, meaning it doesn’t come across as a typical nasty political ad.

In the process the Conservatives are planting in the minds of voters the idea that Trudeau is “in over his head,” and that he just doesn’t have what it takes to run a government.

They make him, in short, look silly.

And for the life of me, I can’t see how such an attack would make Trudeau stronger.

Voters will forgive a lot of flaws in a politician, but one thing they won’t forgive in their potential leaders is incompetence and it doesn’t matter if the inept politician is likable or positive or a celebrity.

That means if Canadians start to view Trudeau as a clown, he’s finished

And given Trudeau’s lack of a resume, his lack of experience, his tendency to say ill-considered remarks, there’s a good chance the Conservatives’ branding of Trudeau will resonate.

Plus any rookie mistakes Trudeau makes in the upcoming weeks and months will only serve to reinforce the Conservative narrative.

I suspect, for instance, that Trudeau “bleeding heart” comments in the wake of the Boston bombing about needing to seek out the “root cause” of terrorism, will provide fodder for the next round of Tory attack ads.

So despite what the columnists are saying, the Tory attacks should concern the Liberals.

NDP Resolutions to Keep an Eye on

This weekend delegates from the New Democratic Party will be converging in Montreal to debate and adopt new policies.

As a public service, I've decided to highlight six key resolutions:

Here they are:

Resolution #500  - The impediment of  Facial Hair

WHEREAS the soon-to-be new Liberal leader is as cute as a button and ever so charming,

BE IT RESOLVED that NDP leader Thomas Mulcair adopt a younger, less threatening visage by shaving off his beard.

BE IT RESOLVED that he visit a unionized barber.

Resolution #501 – What’s Love Got to Do with it?

WHEREAS politics is a death sport,

BE IT RESOLVED that hate is sometimes better than love, especially when it comes to TV ads.

Resolution # 502 - Military History for Dummies

WHEREAS the NDP’s efforts to expose the roots cause of World War One was so successful,

BE IT RESOLVED, we will endeavor to reveal and highlight the capitalistic origins of the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Roses and Star Wars.

Resolution # 503 - What’s in a Name?

WHEREAS our party is more than 50 years old,

BE IT RESOLVED that we stop calling ourselves “New” Democrats.

Resolution #504 - Quebec Power

WHEREAS in the next election we might have trouble winning new seats outside Quebec,

BE IT RESOLVED that Quebec get 200 more seats in the House of Commons.

  

Resolution #505  --Getting with the Times

WHEREAS socialism is a word that conjures up images of parading, goose-stepping North Korean soldiers,

BE IT RESOLVED,  that we drop “socialism” from our constitution and replace it with the Canadian equivalent, i.e. Economic Action Planning.

If these awesome resolutions, don't get you to watch the NDP convention, I don't know what will! 

Margaret Thatcher RIP

With the sad passing of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I thought I'd reproduce a column I wrote four years ago.

Canada Needs a Thatcher

After each federal election, I always ask myself the same question: Why can’t Canada produce a leader like former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher?

The key word there is “leader.” Even if you don’t support her conservative ideology, you have to admit that Thatcher exemplified leadership.

Sadly, leadership is a rare commodity these days in politics. All too often, our political leaders don’t lead, they follow. They follow the whim of public opinion as determined by the latest polls, or they heed the dictates of strident special-interest groups.

That’s not leadership.

As former U.S. president Harry Truman once put it, “How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt? ... It isn’t polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It’s right and wrong and leadership.”

Thatcher understood this.

During her years as Britain’s first (and only) woman prime minister, she consistently took stands on issues not because they were popular, but because she believed they were right. Often, this was not easy. Remember, Thatcher took the reins in the late 1970s, when years of socialist misrule had turned her country into an economic mess.

Turning the British economy around meant that Thatcher had to take tough action. It meant dismantling elements of the welfare state; it meant de-nationalizing state-run companies; and it meant taming Britain’s all-powerful labour union bosses.

And that’s exactly what Thatcher did.

Eventually, her policies rescued the British economy. In fact, future Labour governments even copied many of her measures. Maybe that’s not so surprising. As Thatcher once put it, “In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”

But her success did not come overnight. Indeed, in 1980, in her first full year in power, two million Britons were unemployed and a recession still gripped the country. To a lot of British voters at that time, Thatcher’s free-market economic policies did not seem to be working. Opinion polls showed support for her

Conservative government had fallen to record lows and her personal popularity was dropping sharply. Consequently, she was under tremendous pressure from the public, from the media, and even from within her own caucus to do a “U-turn” and drop her tough measures.

But Thatcher had the courage to stand by her convictions.

In a famous speech to a Conservative convention, she declared: “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catch-phrase — the U-turn — I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to; the Lady’s not for turning.”

Needless to say, her determination to hold the course despite the bad polls led many at the time to conclude Thatcher was committing electoral suicide. Yet not only did she survive electorally, but she went on to win to two more majority governments.

So why can’t we have strong, principled leaders in Canada?

Well, perhaps it’s because Canadian politicians of all stripes base their electoral strategy on what’s called the “median voter theorem.” In his book Harper’s Team, Tom Flanagan, the former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, defined this theorem thus: “It shows mathematically … parties will converge on the position of the median voter. A party that stations itself away from the midpoint yields more than half the potential voters to the other party and thus will lose the election.”

In other words, chasing the median voter means adopting policy platforms that will appeal to the greatest mass of voters possible. Canadian politicians shun policies that might be considered too controversial or ideological.

Thatcher, on the other hand, didn’t see politics in terms of mathematical theorems. Her brand of politics was much more basic: Inspire voters by providing a vision.

Or, to put it another way, she realized that voters respect a politician who has the guts to stand up for principles and values.

Voters want true leaders. That’s what the success of Margaret Thatcher teaches us.

It’s a lesson Canadian politicians would do well to learn.

My Letter to the Queen

Green Party leader Elizabeth May sent a letter to Queen Elizabeth, asking her to investigate robo-calls. So I figured, if she can write the the monarch, why can't I?

See below.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Buckingham Palace

London SW1A 1AA

United Kingdom

August 30, 2012

Your Majesty,

I wish to write to you regarding a matter of grave importance to Canadians, and I request your assistance with this matter.

The problem is we here in Canada have a loopy leader of a loopy fringe party, named Elizabeth May, who keeps doing really, really dopey and embarrassing things.

If she’s not extolling the virtues of a Dark Ages lifestyle, she’s kissing up to the Liberal Party or writing completely off the wall insane letters about the state of Canadian democracy.

I write to request that Your Majesty take some action in this matter.

Of course, I realize you can no longer put troublemakers in the Tower of London, but perhaps you can have her exiled to some other region of your Empire…perhaps to some mountain top in Nepal.

Believe me, your Canadian subjects would be much appreciative.

I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant.

Gerry Nicholls

PS

I wouldn't mind getting one of those Diamond Jubilee Medals, if you have any kicking around the palace.

Reviewing the PC Ad

The Ontario PC party just posted this ad on the Internet -- and that's where I hope it remains, because airing this spot on TV would be take up air waves that could be used for something more useful, such as ads for Waxvac ear cleaners





Why do I say that?

Well, simply put --except for  maybe a handful of political insiders ---no one would understand what the heck this ad is talking about.

It starts out attacking a union boss named Pat Dillon and the negative attack ads his group, Working Families, produces; then it switches to explaining how Dillon met with Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne, then it ends by telling us Dillon and Wynne may or may  not have made some sort of deal.

For a 30 second spot, that's a convoluted story line.

And there's another problem with this ad.

No one knows what Working Families is; no has ever heard of Dillon, so why would anyone care if a guy no one has ever heard of, who runs a group nobody knows about, met with the Premier?

And yes, I realize the Tories are probably trying to inflate Dillon into some sort of super-union boss villain whose powers include the ability to extract costly promises from the premier, but that message just won't stick because viewers lack any sort of reference.

My point is, Dillon just looks like some cranky old guy, not a union boss mastermind who's secretly pulling Wynne's strings.

And please don't tell me my criticism is off base because Working Families is actually a famous or well-known group because it got lots of publicity in the last three elections when it lambasted the Tories with attack ads.

I know Working Families is well known in certain political circles and with the media.

But I'd wager the vast majority of Ontarians couldn't pick Working Families out of a line up. In fact, if asked they'd probably identify it as an insurance company.

And here's another weakness: this ad doesn't tell us why Wynne would actually accede to any of Dillon's outrageous demands and that's a crucial omission.

Is Wynne paying off a political debt? Has Dillon offered her anything in return? Are they political allies?

The ad just has one quick line about Working Families helped "get Liberals elected."  That's an awfully subtle link.

To be believable the ad has to provide the  key characters in this drama with some motivation and it has to pound it home with a sledge hammer.

A line like this would make the connection a little stronger: "Union bosses helped the Liberals get elected. That's why Kathleen Wynne will do whatever it takes to keep her union boss friends happy, no matter how much it hurts you. If she wins, you lose."

The ad is also fuzzy in other ways.

It doesn't tell us what sort of deal Wynne and Dillon may have struck,  nor does it tell us why such a deal should trigger concern. Indeed, it doesn't even say there was a deal.

All we are told is if there was some hypothetical agreement between the two could "cost" us.

That's a pretty vague warning and vagueness in ads just doesn't work.

Plus, the other point of the ad is to portray Dillon and Wynne as some sort of cohorts.

Yet, there are no pictures of the two together, no shots of Wynne and Dillon holding hands or smiling next to each other or meeting at a desk. All we see is a picture of Wynne's door.

As a result the ad lacks any sort of visual punch. The pictures must reinforce the message.

And it's also a little confusing in spots. For instance, at one point the ad says Working Families spend millions on "negative ads to make sure the Liberals get elected", meanwhile as this is being said, the visual is a shot of Dillon on a TV screen.

Is Working Families attacking him with negative ads?

But never mind all that. Here's the key strategic problem with this ad. What would concern Ontarians isn't  Dillon is asking Wynne for favours, but Wynne  granting those favours.

In other words, Wynne, not Dillon, should be the star of the ad.

She's the one the Tories need to make a villain.

Now please understand, I'm not saying the Ontario PCs shouldn't go after Working Families or union bosses.

But if they do so, they must make sure their messages are clear, concise and believable. And their ads must serve a credible strategic purpose.

Otherwise, viewers will be less likely to buy the Tory message and more likely to buy a Waxvac.

A Great Man's Legacy

Note: On this day in 1987, Colin M. Brown, the founder of the National Citizens Coalition passed away. To mark the occasion, I am re-posting a column I wrote six years ago.

*****************************

Today marks the twentieth anniversary of a great man's death.

His name was Colin M. Brown.

Maybe you never heard of him, but Colin was an important person in my life and an important person in Canadian history.

For one thing, he was the founder and first president of the National Citizens Coalition.

But that's not what made him so important.

What's important about Colin is the example he set for the rest of us who believe in freedom and who believe some values are worthing fighting for --- no matter what the odds.

Today, for instance, some of us are sometimes disillusioned and disappointed with the trends of the world. Some of us even think at times that we should give up the battle.

But just imagine what it was like for conservatives back in the late 1960s, when Canada was in the grip of Trudeaumania.

Socialism we were told then was the way of the future. Big government, went the conventional wisdom, was the answer to all our problems.

Anyone who believed otherwise was ostracized as a "dinosaur" or worse.

Colin didn't buy it.

To him Trudeau's vision was not only wrong, but also destroying the country he loved.

Yet he just didn't complain about what was happening to his country -- he did something about it.

Always a fighter, this World War II vet, took up his sword and declared war on Trudeau's Canada.

Using his own money he took out ads in newspapers speaking up for free markets and calling for less government.

This was heresy!

Politicians attacked him, leftists smeared him, the media tried to ignore him.

But undeterred, Colin fought on.

And before long something happened: thousands of Canadians rallied to Colin's side.

They saw in Colin a man who had the courage of his convictions, a man who was saying the things they longed to hear, a man who wasn't afraid to stand up for what was right.

So great was Colin's support that in 1975 he founded the NCC, as a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to fighting for a freer, better Canada. He called it a hobby that went berserk.

Did Colin and the NCC help to change Canada?

Well let's put it this way, back in 1975 I don't think even Colin would have dreamed that one of his successors as NCC president would one day become Prime Minister.

The Walking Dead-Advocacy Group

I didn’t mean to get into an ideological Twitter battle with the National Citizens Coalition, but I did.

It all started when I wrote a column criticizing the conservative advocacy group for its decision to actively support the Sun News Network’s application for a “mandatory carriage” license. My point was that such support runs counter to the NCC’s stated conservative principles.

To me, it’s obvious: forcing citizens to pay for a TV channel they may not want to watch violates an individual’s right to free choice. Conservatives are supposed to support free choice.

At any rate, a few hours after my column appeared, NCC director Stephen Taylor responded to my argument with a well-reasoned, thoughtful defence of his group’s action.

Ha, just kidding! 

 What Taylor really did was go on Twitter and lob personal insults my way.

That didn’t surprise me. After all,  on page  one of the Big Book of Cheap Political Tricks it says: if you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.

But there was one Taylor tweet in our exchange that did astonish me.

After I suggested the NCC was betraying its principles, Taylor responded thusly: “Keep up the good work. You're making us less free by holding reality-based pragmatic actors to a fruitless idealistic standard.”

When I read that, my jaw dropped. Here was a senior officer in the NCC basically saying his group’s core mandate was a “fruitless idealistic standard.” Amazing.

I wonder if NCC fundraising letters start something like this:

Dear NCC supporter:

Please send us your hard-earned money so we can waste it trying to achieve a fruitless, idealistic standard.

Anyway, to my mind, Taylor’s odd tweet confirms what I have long suspected: the NCC has lost its original motivational spirit, not to mention its sense of purpose.

I happen to know a thing or two about the NCC’s original spirit, because I worked for the organization for 22 years.

And when I worked for the NCC, we were proud to set “idealistic” standards. We fought unabashedly for free markets, smaller government and individual freedom.

Nor did we think fighting for our values was “fruitless”, even though we often faced overwhelming odds.

As they say in hockey: it’s not how many you win — it’s how many you show up for.

But sadly, today’s NCC is apparently less about fighting for principle and more about pursuing what Taylor calls “reality-based pragmatic” goals.

So I suppose that means on one day the NCC will push for less government and on the next it will push the government to limit consumer choice.

Come to think of it, that’s not reality-based or pragmatic. It’s just confused.

The question is, does Canada really need a confused organization like today’s NCC? I say that because we already have plenty of reality-based, pragmatic organizations that spurn principle. 

We call them political parties.

What we do need is an organization that has the courage to push political parties to do the right thing, even if the right thing is unpopular or difficult to achieve.

We need what the late libertarian academic Benjamin Rogge called “an island of sanity in an increasingly insane world.”

Oh well. I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised that the NCC has dramatically changed since my time. It’s the nature of any organization to evolve. And the NCC has clearly evolved into a kind of organizational zombie.

It still staggers along from issue to issue and reacts from time to time, but it no longer has a soul.

This article originally appeared in Ipolitics. 

Medal Envy

Not to exaggerate or anything, but I am the victim of an appalling, terrible injustice, the likes of which the world has never seen.

Get this: I am the only person in all of Canada who has not yet been awarded a Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Or at least it seems that way.

In fact, so many people seem to be getting these Diamond Jubilee medals, that for a while I thought they were handing them out at subway stations, along with those free newspapers.

But then I learned you actually have to be “nominated.”

And really that’s about all I do know about the Diamond Jubilee Medal, except for two other key facts: it has something to do with a) diamonds and b) jubilees.

At any rate, it’s a terrible feeling not to be nominated for this medal.

Every day I dream of draping it around my neck, or pinning it to my chest, or hanging it on the wall next to my “Perfect Attendance” certificate from sixth grade.

To make matters worse some of my friends have received the Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Imagine the embarrassment I’ll feel when I am the only medalless attendee at the next “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” meeting. (Note: I am never invited to Vast Right Wing Conspiracy meetings, but it’s the principle that matters.)

And let me be clear, I am not asking for something I am not qualified to receive, like I did when I demanded a literary Pulitzer Prize for my erotic novel, 50 Shades of Gerry.

Just check out the “eligibility criteria” to get a nomination:

* The nominee must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada.

* The nominee must have been alive on February 6th, 2012, the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession to the Throne.

* The nominee must have made a significant contribution to a particular province, territory, region or community within Canada.

I handily meet the first two requirements in that I am a Canadian citizen and as far as I know I was alive on February 6, 2012, though my memory can sometimes play tricks on me.

As for the requirement about a “significant contribution”, I would suggest that my plastering of cartoon pigs on negative attack ads significantly contributed to lowering this country’s standard of public debate.

Hey, the rules don’t say it has to be a “good” contribution.

So again, I ask, why no medal for me?

Well one possibility is that I have made too many enemies.

In fact, among the groups I may have inadvertently offended over the years include:

• Anyone who thinks Prime Minister Stephen Harper is God.
• Anyone who thinks Prime Minister Stephen Harper is Satan
• The entire state of New Hampshire
• “Artists” who get government subsidies for creating “art” that looks like stuff found at the local trash dump.
• The David Suzuki Fan Club
• Diamond Jubilee Medal winners.

 All I can say is, can’t we let bygones be bygones?

Indeed, in the spirit of friendship, I make the following promises.

To right-wing nominators I say, give me this medal and I solemnly promise to effusively praise our monarch, and, if I have time, I will also say a few nice things about Queen Elizabeth.

To left-wing nominators I say, give me this medal, and I promise to get all self-righteous about some trendy cause and will threaten to give it back.

And if that doesn’t convince you, consider this: the nomination process lacks any sort of transparency, meaning if you nominate me, no one ever needs to know about it.

It’ll be our little secret.

So what are you waiting for nominators, put the pedal to the Jubilee Medal.