Rating the new Tory attack ad

When you get a reputation for running political “negative ads”, people will almost be disappointed if you don’t go on the attack.

Such is the case with the Conservative Party.

Always aggressive, the Tories seem to take great delight in stuffing their opponents into a media meat grinder.  Just ask Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff.

At any rate, people either love these ads or love to hate them.

And so naturally, every one was impatiently waiting for them to go after the new kid on the block -- NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

Well, it’s happened; the Conservatives have at long last posted their first true Mulcair attack video.

How does it rate?

Well, I don’t like it.

Yes it has all the standard ingredients that go into making an effective attack spot:  black and white imagery to make the target look menacing, ominous music and a voice of doom narration.

But the messaging in the ad is vague and confusing; so people just won't get it.

My point is a good political ad starts from scratch and basically assumes the voter knows nothing.

Yet this attack spot more or less assumes voters know what “Dutch Disease” means; it assumes they know what a carbon tax is; it assumes they know about trade policy.

And those are all massive assumptions.

Plus, it’s just plain confusing when the words, “Make them pay now for what they are doing” flash on the screen. What the heck does that mean? Did Mulcair say that? If he did, so what? Who are “they” and what exactly are they “doing?"

How does all this lead viewers to conclude that Mulcair has “risky theories” and “dangerous economic experiments.”

It doesn’t.

Why not just come out and say, "Mulcair has attacked Alberta's oil sands, calling it the Dutch Disease, he wants to kill jobs etc."

Simpler is always better.

In short, this is an over the top ad that will leave viewers scratching their heads if not reaching for the remote.

That’s if they pay attention at all.

These are summer days after all, when the only dangerous experiments occur when people try to create their own barbecue sauce.

Score: 4 out of 10.

What's "American-style" Free Speech?

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui recently came up with a baffling argument to defend Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13, of course, is the controversial law which gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the legal right to annoy Ezra Levant.

But that’s not all. Lots of people also believe Section 13 has empowered government bureaucrats to undemocratically censor free speech. See here and here.

But this doesn’t faze Siddiqui who recently wrote – and this is the baffling part -- that anyone who opposes Section 13 must be an advocate of “American-style free speech”.

Here's the phrase in its full context:

The human rights act and the commission it spawned came into being some 40 years ago as a result of yeoman efforts by the Jewish and black communities. There was to be freedom of speech but also freedom from hate. That was going to be the Canadian way.This was challenged by the advocates of American-style free speech — an unholy alliance of media (that wanted as few restrictions on content as possible) and anti-Semites and others (who wanted to be free to spread their bigotry).

My question is what the heck is American-style free speech? 

I have heard of American-style attack ads and American-style health care and American-style gun laws, but never, ever have I ever heard anyone refer to American-style free speech.

And what exactly is the "Canadian way?"

I am trying to figure all this out.

Perhaps Siddiqui believes each country has its own distinctive brand of free speech. Thus there is a Canadian-style free speech, a British-style free speech, a Mongolian-style free speech, a Bolivian-style free speech and so on.

An interesting idea to be sure, but also kind of confusing.

For example, exactly why do different countries have different styles of free speech? Does it have something to do with different genetic bloodlines?

If so, North Koreans must be genetically disposed to getting thrown into prison or executed any time they utter non-state approved thoughts.  If this is the case, then human rights advocates shouldn't mind if North Korean authorities deal with American-style free speech activists in the "North Korean Way."

But if free speech has something to do with our cultural heritage what happens in a multi-cultural country like Canada? We would have chaos with all those different styles of free speech intersecting and conflicting!

So maybe Siddiqui believes national speech styles are actually the result of local environments.

And so we here in Canada support Section 13 ie "The Canadian Way", because of some natural force which emanates from the Rocky Mountains or from the Arctic Circle.

But if that’s the case, why then did we only enact Section 13 about 40 or so years ago? Surely, the earliest settlers and pioneers were subject to the same environmental forces as we are today. Yet they did not include Section 13-type laws in the BNA Act.

Did John A. MacDonald or Wilfrid Laurier ever talk about the need for Human Rights Commissions?

Don’t think so.

Plus many Canadians actually oppose Section 13. Are they immune to Canadian-style speech? If so why? Are they “unCanadian" because they don't follow the "Canadian Way." Should they be deported?

That doesn't seem all that democratic.

Mind you, maybe there is another explanation for Siddiqui’s comment.

Maybe he actually used “American-style speech” as a pejorative. In other words, when he said American-style, perhaps what he really meant was “dangerous foreign idea”.

Now, I am no expert in this sort of thing, but to me that sounds like an attitude that’s not tolerant of the customs of people who live in other lands. It might even cause Canadians to look less than warmly on our American cousins or on Canadians who oppose Section 13.

Yet, Siddiqui opposes "hate speech."

Like I said, it’s all pretty baffling.

Luckily, we in Canada have an entity that can help solve this puzzle.

Somebody call the Human Rights Commission!

Analyzing Simpson's Analysis

A couple of days ago, the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column bemoaning Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policy.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on international relations, but his piece just seemed a little off to me.

To show you what I mean, I have reprinted Simpson's column below with my observations in italics:

Canada is 'back' on the world stage? Hardly
by Jeffrey Simpson

           

For those who care about Canada's international reputation and Canada's ability to influence others in the pursuit of Canada's self-interest, these are discouraging days.

Sorry Mr. Simpson, I am pretty sure very few Canadians actually care about Canada’s international reputation or its ability to influence others, unless, of course, you are talking about international hockey tournaments.

Everywhere, there is penny-pinching that makes no sense, a hectoring tone not appreciated by others, and a misunderstanding about how international affairs really work. For a government that has proclaimed Canada is “back” on the international stage, what is actually happening would be funny were it not serious.

Most things governments do would be funny, if they were not so serious.

For some time now, the euro zone has been in various states of crisis. To observe that the European Union, and particularly those member states using the euro, needs to improve its internal arrangements is obvious, as is any observation that the crisis there is a long way from resolution.

Translation: Europe is heading down a fiscal toilet.

But if that crisis deepens, Canadians, like people everywhere, will be adversely affected. And so, concerned countries outside the euro zone have been pledging what we might call “just-in-case” money to the International Monetary Fund to use, if necessary, to stabilize the world economy and assist the euro zone.

Pledges of $430-billion have been made. More are to come from large emerging countries such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Countries that have already pledged include Japan, South Korea, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia and Singapore.

So let me get this straight. The people who created this fiscal nightmare of European overspending and massive debt have come up with a solution: more spending!!

The Harper government, however, rejects the idea of contributing to an IMF fund. Canada, therefore, stands alone with the United States, which unlike Canada is in terrible fiscal shape. Worse, various Canadian politicians, rather than at least using a sympathetic tone, prefer a hectoring, morally superior one toward Europe – a tone ill-becoming a G8 country.

Oh true. Canada has never, ever used a morally superior tone to any other country in its history, unless, of course, you count the million or so times Liberal Prime Ministers have denigrated, insulted or otherwise lectured the United States of America. But maybe that doesn’t count since the US was only a major trading partner and a key military ally. At any rate, why should we give our money to the Greeks, wouldn't it just be easier to waste it ourselves?

Where, except on the Conservative backbench, would one get someone like Pierre Poilievre, MP? He said: “This Prime Minister will not force hard-working Canadian taxpayers to bail out sumptuous euro welfare-state countries and the wealthy bankers that lend to them.” Here is blind ideology blended with profound parochialism of the kind that is giving Canada a well-deserved reputation for being increasingly an outlier, except when it comes to military interventions.

Hmmm, I wonder if any other Canadian politicians have ever made blind, ideologically blended comments? Hey, what about the time former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien seemingly blamed American "greed" and "arrogance" for the 9/11 terrorist attack? Oops, sorry that was an anti-American comment uttered by a Liberal and is therefore allowable blind, ideology.

Canada under this government failed to win a seat on the UN Security Council, a stinging rebuke. Canada's once-sterling reputation for caring about Africa is over. Canada's reputation in the Arab world is mud, because although ministers never criticize anything Israel does, they never miss a chance to lecture the Palestinians.

Oh no, the UN, that corrupt nest of despots, dictators and pathological killers, doesn’t like us!!! And before Prime Minister Harper came along the “Arab world” loved Canada, did it?  I guess that’s why, back in 2004, Al Qaeda put Canada on its hit list.

Canada is about to be spurned in its efforts to join the emerging trade bloc, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Canada's Commonwealth partners are worried the Harper government might wreck the next meeting in Sri Lanka because of its hectoring of that country's government, a policy that curries Conservatives' favour with the large Tamil community in Toronto. Canada's feeble non-climate-change policy is universally panned.

Yeah, imagine Canada "hectoring" a government to recognize basic human rights. How shameful! 

In the current budget, the government is cutting foreign aid by $319-million and taking $170-million from Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The government is selling off residences (that, properly used, are essential for making contacts with key people in other countries, which is what diplomacy is all about), hollowing out staff at missions abroad, closing consulates (in the U.S.), reducing budgets for outreach overseas. (How do you think Mr. Harper was one of the first world leaders to phone the newly elected President of France, François Hollande? Because the Canadian embassy in France worked hard to get Mr. Hollande's personal cellphone number. That's called diplomatic work.)

So we need to spend $170 million to get a guy’s phone number! Seems to me a phone book would be cheaper.

The government is eliminating the small but effective program encouraging the study of Canada in foreign universities. It has ended the annual trip to the Canadian Arctic for ambassadors posted here (for which the ambassadors partly pay) – a briefing trip that gave ambassadors an insight into that increasingly crucial part of the country they would likely not otherwise receive.

Actually, I agree with Mr. Simpson here. Imagine how it would help Canada’s international reputation if, say, Syria’s ambassador to Canada was mysteriously eaten by a Polar Bear!

It is all so penny-wise and pound foolish, especially for a country that once prided itself on punching above its weight and, more important, understood that this is a relatively small country with huge international interests. Now, Canada has retreated into an anglospheric worldview coupled with a focus on trade deals, but lacking any sense of a wider conception of international affairs.

Not sure what an “anglospheric” world view means, but if it includes annoying the French, I am all for it!

Hectoring and lecturing undoubtedly appeals to the Conservative Party's core voters. It does not impress other governments, including friendly ones.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Simpson, no Canadian Prime Minister has ever lost an election because he was unpopular in Paris or Berlin.

The 10 Most Egregious Punditry Errors

As we all know by now the vast majority of political pundits (including yours truly) completely misread the recent Alberta election.

We all thought the Wildrose Party would bloom, but instead it got cut down by the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party lawn mower and then thrown on the compost heap of electoral failure.

What can we learn from this? I mean, what can we learn besides the fact that I am terrible when it comes to making up metaphors.

Well, one lesson we can learn from the Wildrose loss is the inherent dangers of making election predictions, or as I like to call them, "wild guesses".

Fortunately, however, there are ways to improve such guesses.

For one thing, instead of relying on public opinion polls to make a prediction, try using methods that are cheaper, easier and just as scientifically accurate, such as  throwing darts at a board or rolling a die or flipping a coin.

Mind you, even using those methods won’t absolutely ensure prediction success. The fact is predicting the future is hard.

Indeed, although the punditry failure in Alberta made headlines, it’s not the first time “experts” have been completely and utterly wrong.

I did a little historical research and discovered several examples of failed predictions.

Here are the ten most egregious:

“No Cabinet Minister will ever pay more than $14 for a glass of orange juice.”  -- 2005

“Now that Nazi Germany is defeated, one name that will never, ever be uttered again in the House of Commons is, Hitler.” -- 1945

“I have seen the Progressive Conservative Party’s future and his name is Joe Clark!”  -- 1979

“I have seen the Progressive Conservative Party’s future and her name is Kim Campbell!” --- 1993

“I have seen the Liberal Party’s future and his name is Stephane Dion.” -- 2007

“One thing is for sure, the NDP leadership convention will NOT be the most boring, horribly drawn out and technology-glitched event in Canadian history” – 2012

“The emergence of the Sun News Network will usher in a period of serene conviviality in Canada’s news media community.” – 2011

“A political party that wants to ensure an election victory should secure as its leader someone who has lived outside the country for 30 years and who also possesses a post-graduate degree from a prestigious American Ivy League university.:” -- 2009

“Now that Montreal has won the Stanley Cup, you can be sure we will see many, many more Canadian-based teams win the NHL championship.” --- 1993

“When it comes to fiscal responsibility the best thing you can do is purchase an untried, and vastly complicated piece of military hardware.” 2010.

So you see, even, highly trained and professional pundits have been wrong from time to time in the past.

Mind you, I am fairly certain experts will always get it right in the future.

Why did the bloom come off the Wildrose?

I have been trying to make some sense out of the recent Wildrose debacle.

What exactly happened? Why did the Wildrose blow such a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls?

Lots of theories are floating out there. Some say “strategic voting” did them in or that the “bimbo eruptions” of loose cannon candidates hurt the party and others contend Wildrose is just too conservative.

Wildrose leader Danielle Smith seems to be in the latter camp. Indeed, she is openly suggesting the party may have to rethink some of its policies if it’s to succeed in the future.

However, my view is the Wildrose loss had more to do with tactics than with policy.

Why do I say that? Well, just consider the Wildrose ad strategy in the last few weeks of the race. It ran what I call “Bandwagon” TV ads. These are positive, upbeat ads designed to urge undecided voters to jump on the “winning team”. These can be effective because, after all, people like to back a winner.

And when I saw these Wildrose ads it helped to confirm my belief they would win. I assumed Wildrose’s own internal polling showed them that undecided voters were leaning Wildrose, and that all it would take to win them over was a nudge.

Yet, it seems the undecided vote actually broke overwhelming for the Progressive Conservatives. Or least this is what Smith contends.

Now this is not the kind of trend a public poll would pick up. But the Wildrose’s own pollsters should have seen this coming. They should have known that undecided voters were leaning PC and would likely vote that way in large numbers.

If they didn’t pick up this crucial trend, than they were not doing their job.

On the other hand, if the pollsters did detect it, then the problem rests with the Wildrose campaign strategy.

Rather than running positive ads in the last few weeks of the race, they should have tried to degrade Premier Alison Redford and the PC brand name.

Perhaps this would have stopped the bleeding.

And yes, I know this is all hindsight analysis, but unfortunately it’s too late for foresight analysis.

Pre-election Analysis

When Tuesday morning rolls around and the results of the Alberta provincial election are known, the outcome will seem as if they were pre-ordained.

What I mean is if the Alberta Progressive Conservatives pull off a victory, pundits will point out this result was totally and absolutely inevitable either because a) Alberta’s becoming less “right wing” and more “cosmopolitan” or b) Wildrose leader Danielle Smith blundered when she didn’t denounce the outrageous comments of some of her party’s candidates.

On the other hand, if Wildrose comes out on top, we will be told this result was totally and absolutely inevitable because the Alberta PC dynasty was tired, corrupt and ready for collapse.

In short, political pundits are always brilliant in hindsight.

And so, I am going out on a limb by making a pre-election day analysis. Rather than relying on “hindsight”, I will use the much riskier “foresight.”

But before you read on, a word of caution: I live in Ontario. I am only watching the Alberta election from afar and largely through the prism of the national and eastern media. I have not made any thorough analysis of polling data, nor am I in touch with any sources “on the ground” in that province.

Much of what I am going to say is based simply on my own political instincts. Some might call it “guessing”.

And so with that important caveat in place, here’s my take of what will be obvious to all on Tuesday morning.

To begin with, I am not surprised a bit with the Alberta PC party’s drop in the polls. Recall that earlier this year, the PCs enjoyed 54% support in the polls while Wildrose languished at just 16%. Seemed at the time like PCs were in store for yet another easy majority victory.

Yet as I wrote back in February the “PC support has peaked and is probably pretty soft. That means it can go nowhere but down.”

And that’s exactly what happened.

The fact is, Albertans want change. And why not, the Alberta PCs have been in power since before fire was invented. What this means is that in effect, Albertans were primed and ready not to like newly minted PC leader Premier Alison Redford. All they needed were reasons to reject her.

And Redford obliged.

She pandered to public sector union bosses, she mishandled scandals, she increased government spending.

And in doing all these things, Redford seemingly went out of her way to alienate potential supporters.

Let’s not forget the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are supposed to be … well conservative. In theory, they are a “right wing party.” Much of their base was certainly conservative leaning. But in recent years, many conservatives, disillusioned with the PC party’s drift to the left, defected to Wildrose.

This was a serious problem for the PCs, but the trend was reversible.

Indeed, a sensible and obvious strategy for the PCs would have been to woo as many of these voters as possible back to the Tory fold. And make no mistake, this would have been eminently doable at little political cost.

I say that because Wildrose isn’t so much a party as it is an unwieldy and diverse coalition made up of libertarians, social conservatives, populists and Alberta nationalists. These are groups which don’t necessarily get along. In fact, they sometimes hate each other. The only thing keeping them united right now is that, for a variety of reasons, they all share a mutual dislike for the Alberta Tories.

In other words, Wildrose has ideological fault lines a mile wide. The PCs could and should have exploited this weakness. Simply put, they could have split apart Wildrose by appealing to different parts of its base. Surely, there must still exist in the hearts of one-time PC supporters some residual loyalty for the old Tory brand name.

But Redford made absolutely no attempt to rekindle that loyalty. Instead she pushed away her old supporters and embraced Red Toryism, hoping, it would seem, to recruit Liberals and New Democrats. In effect, she basically wanted to re-invent the PCs as a left of centre party, even if that meant conceding the bulk of the right wing vote to Wildrose.

If current polls are to be believed, that was a huge strategic error.

Mind you, certain things are outside of Redford’s control. For instance, in the past, Alberta PCs could always count on a sure-fire winning formula: Campaign against Ottawa.

What I mean is in days of yore, the PCs framed themselves as the only ones who could defend Alberta’s values and resources from the rapacious designs of Eastern federal politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

And for Albertans, furious about the disastrous National Energy Program, this was an argument that resonated.

But today things are different. Now Alberta has, in Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a friend in Ottawa. 

Indeed, Harper is an Albertan!

Unfortunately for the PCs this means they can no longer bash Ottawa.

And there is something else that’s different about this election: for the first time ever, the PCs face a legitimate threat from the right in the Wildrose Party.

Wildrose has a telegenic leader in Smith, it seems to have lots of money and seasoned political veterans are running its campaign.

And Wildrose has something even more important going for it right now: momentum.

Poll after poll shows the Wildrose heading for a victory on Monday. Yes, I know polls can be wrong or misleading, but just the perception of momentum can be a powerful force in politics. Voters are more disposed to back a party that appears to be gaining steam.

The Alberta Tories and their media allies have tried to counter this momentum with another potent force: fear.

They are declaring Wildrose leader Smith is “untested, untried and unfit” to lead. Or they suggest she is an “extremist” or a bigot.

Typically, such tactics reflect a campaign that’s in desperation mode. And when employed at this stage in a campaign such attacks rarely work. Or at least they didn’t work when used to derail Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher or Mike Harris or Stephen Harper.

It seems unlikely, to me anyway, that Albertans can be convinced to write off Smith, who comes across as pretty affable on TV, as a dangerous radical.

Also a sign of desperation is the fact that the PC party is seemingly pinning its hopes on “strategic voting”, a tactic that only works in the delusional minds of campaign strategists.

At any rate, I guess by now you have an idea of where I am heading with all of this.

My strong sense is not that Wildrose will win on Monday, but that, for all the reasons stated above, the PCs will lose.

Of course, my whole analysis might turn out to be completely wrong.

And if that’s the case, I am sure the reasons for my errors will be completely obvious on Tuesday morning.

Final Days of Alberta Election will Pit Momentum Against Fear

The last few days before an election are always the most crucial.

This is the time when the vast majority of voters actually start paying attention to the race with any degree of seriousness and focus.

That’s why it’s also the time a campaign must run its best and most persuasive messaging.

And so, with that in mind, what will the Alberta PCs and Wildrosers do this last weekend before the vote?

Well, I know what I would do.

If I am on Wildrose team, I would run a “we are gaining momentum, we are an exciting movement of change” style of ad. The idea is you want to urge people to jump on the winning and popular bandwagon.

Here’s a classic example of this sort of ad:

Also, I would air TV ads featuring former PC voters switching allegiance to the Wildrose. Maybe the ads would show people putting up a Wildrose sign on their law or a bumper sticker on their car, as they say something like “I was always a loyal PC supporter, but now I see Wildrose is best for Alberta.”

I call these switcher ads.

Again, voters like to be on the side of whoever has the momentum.

As for the PCs, well the polls show they are trailing pretty badly right now. If the their own internal polls show the same, I expect they will use the only weapon they have left in their arsenal: fear.

I would saturate the market with attacks on Wildrose Leader, Danielle Smith, focusing especially on questions about her competence.

The theme would be something along the lines of “Can we really trust this political neophyte to run the province at this crucial time?”

This could be effective; fear can be a powerful motivating weapon.

It’s what helped kill the Ontario PCs in the last Ontario election.

At any rate, no matter whats ad-wise the next few days in Alberta will be fun to watch.

Never Thought I'd See Such a Stupid Ad

There is always a temptation when running a political attack ad, to get cute. Sometimes this works, but all too often an ad that supposed to be clever turns out to be really, really stupid.

For an example of a really, really stupid ad, check out this video found on IneverthoughtIdvotepc.com, an anonymous website, that was most likely produced by the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party.

Anyway, this ad is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.

First off, the ad's edgy routine will backfire. What I mean is the profanity and off-colour language, used by the actors portraying an ever so hip and ever so diverse and ever so obnoxious group of young people is so offensive it will turn off  viewers.

Indeed, I suspect anyone who was on the fence before seeing this video will decide to vote Wildrose after seeing it. Also, I suspect many voters who were going to support the PCs before seeing this ad, will change their minds after seeing it and vote Wildrose.

The thought process will go like this: “Any political party these brain dead idiots are against, I am for!”  

Now call me crazy, but I believe airing an ad that actually drives people away from your party, is bad strategy.

And yes, I know the producers of the spot are hoping this will be offset by legions of young chic, urban Albertans who, wishing to emulate the actors in the video, will “vote strategically” to deny the Wildrose a victory.

But there are a couple of problems with this strategy. First, the demographic this ad is targeting --- mainly those people who spend most of their free time playing Xboxes – don’t exactly vote in massive numbers.

Secondly, and more importantly, despite what some media-types and political junkies like to believe, strategic voting doesn’t happen.

Most regular people going into a voting booth don’t think “I don’t like Party A, so I will vote for Party B even though I really like Party C.” Instead, they vote for Party C.

And here's problem with the ad: It contains blatant and absurd falsehoods. During the video actors say Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith “believes the Flintsones are real” and that she “doesn’t believe in gravity.”

Of course, these are lies.

OK I know this is supposed to be “humour”, but this is meant to be a serious piece of political communication. Simply put, lying is wrong in a political spot, even if it's just a lame joke.


Plus the ad isn't even logically consistent. It says to vote strategically, but as my friend Peter Jaworski pointed out on his Facebook page, the spot ends with an actor saying "vote for people who you think are good, man." So which is it? Vote strategically or vote for the guy who is good? You can't do both.

I could go on, but let me finish with one more observation.

The PC party is running this ad because they are desperate and panicky. And losing power after 41 years, probably is a frightening thought.

Yet that does not give the PCs the right to mock and ridicule their own supporters, just for the sake of keeping power.

 And make no mistake, this ad is a calculated slap on the face to every small “c” conservative in Alberta.

The PCs are basically calling conservatives rustic, redneck, rubes in the desperate hope this will curry favor with the trendy left.

This goes beyond crass and cynical. It’s nothing short of despicable.

Premier Alison Redford should be ashamed. 

   
Update:

The producer of the ad says it was not an Alberta PC Party production. I am dubious. 

Schooling Russell on Harper and the Charter

Just sent a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to this column. Don't think it will get printed, so to get it off my chest I will post it here:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Surprise, surprise, Frances Russell has spewed out yet another hysterical and bizarre column aimed at smearing Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (Harper undoing Canada, April 4, 2012)

What is this, the 1000^th such column this month?

News flash Ms. Russell: Other stuff is happening in the world.

Anyway, typically I ignore her simple-minded left wing fantasy rants, but this time she wrote something so ridiculous it had to be challenged.

I am referring to her statement in today’s column that Harper “abhors the 1982 Canadian Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Really?

Perhaps Russell is ignorant of the fact that during his time at the National Citizens Coalition, Harper used the Charter on more than one occasion to challenge bad laws.

Yes, that’s right. He turned to the court system and to the Charter in his battle to protect individual freedoms.

As Harper himself once put it, “Solutions can only be found in the classical theory of liberal democracy -- checks and balances of institutional power under limited government”.

Hardly sounds like the actions of a man who “abhors” the Charter, does it?

Mind you, I don’t expect Russell cares much for actual facts or research.

After all, it’s so much easier just to churn out mindless garbage.

Baseball Brainwashing Gone Wrong

My son and I love both love baseball, but unfortunately we don't love it in the same way.

And for me that's a cause for real grief.

To understand what I mean, you need to know I am a baseball zealot. And when I had a son, I was determined that he too would share my passion for the greatest of all sports ---whether he liked it or not.

So when he was barely able to walk I jammed a fielder's mitt on his tiny hand; instead of watching cartoons he watched Blue Jay highlight videos and at three-years-old he was using a plastic bat to whack whiffle balls.

I patiently pitched to him hour after hour, and yes, in the process I took a few vicious liners off various parts of my anatomy, but it was worth it:

My son eagerly took to the sport. Indeed, he went on to become a little league all-star.

But for some reason my baseball brainwashing was not a complete success. Yes, he loved the game, but he loved it the wrong way.

The right way to love baseball, of course, is to embrace the game's traditions and myths and legends.

Anyone who has ever seen the baseball movies The Natural or Field of Dreams knows what I am talking about.

Baseball is not about today; it's about yesterday. It's about Bobby Thomson's "shot heard 'round the world," or Babe Ruth calling his home run, or George Brett's pine tar bat.

But my son --- now in his early 20s -- cares nothing for the game's history or hallowed traditions. He doesn't care that the Dodgers once played in Brooklyn or that Ted Williams' nickname was the Splendid Splinter.

If anything he is more than ready to dump the game's grand customs in the name of rationality.

He likes the horrendous idea of a "wild card" team making the playoffs. In fact, he wants (horror of horrors) to add more teams to post-season.

He also supports such heresies as interleague play, the designated hitter rule and using video replays to review an umpire's call.

Where, oh where did I go wrong?

The problem is my son understands the game, but not its soul. And this is clearly manifested in his approach to statistics.

To my mind, for a hitter only three stats really matter: batting average, home runs and runs batted in. For a pitcher, it's wins and losses, earned run average and strike outs. That's the way it's been since the days of Abner Doubleday.

But my son talks about statistics you can only understand if you have an advanced degree in physics.

For example, we will be watching a game and I will say something like "John Jones is a great hitter; he has a batting average of .290."

In response my son will roll his eyes and declare, "His 'isolated power' stats are weak, plus his 'super linear weights' and 'wins above replacement' numbers are a joke."

I nod sagely in response, but what I am really thinking is: "Isn't a 'super linear weight' some sort of exercise machine?"

And he talks about other weird-sounding stats such as Batting Runs Above Average, (B.R.A.A.) which is not to be confused with Batting Runs Above Replacement (B.R.A.R.) or Batting Average on Ball In Play (B.A.B.I.P.).

My reaction is always the same: W.H.A.T.?

And he uses phrases like "regression analysis" and "Pythagorean formulas." It's like talking baseball with Mr. Spock.

The sad fact is, for my son baseball isn't a grand romantic narrative, it's a cold, sterile mathematical equation.

And so we love the same sport, but not the same game.

By the way, I named my son Nolan, after Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan who holds the record for most career strike outs.

You would think that would make him happy?

But it doesn’t.

As he recently put it, "Why didn't you name me after a pitcher with a better walks to strike out ratio?

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.