Dear Mayor Ford Supporters: We Told You So

By: James Di Fiore

It was as though every caricature about Mayor Rob Ford had amalgamated into one symphony of filth. Two Toronto Star reporters viewed a video of Mayor Ford smoking crack, calling Justin Trudeau a fag and declaring “I’m a fucking right winger!”

Not exactly a shining moment for Canadian conservatives.

And it would be nice to say this surreal example of a mayor gone wild was unpredictable. It would be nice to say that indeed, but it isn’t even close to being accurate. Like it or not, a large segment of Toronto declared Mayor Ford as a man in-over-his-head long before he took office, and years before the Harper government tried to brand Justin Trudeau with the same tagline.

The evidence of Ford’s lack of professionalism was abundant while the 2010 election was still in it’s infancy. Remember Adam Giambrone? His in-office fling now seems arbitrary when contrasted next to Ford’s consistent and often jaw-dropping antics.

Sure, being an affable fellow is not and should not preclude a person from holding public office. But Ford isn’t affable. He’s a punchline. He’s a bully. He’s not book smart. He’s a bitter partisan who sloganeers rather than leads. And he’s always been this way. His detractors were not simply grasping at elitist straws and motivated by left wing zealots. Even sensible conservatives expressed concern over Ford’s bombastic style. It lacked substance from the get-go.

And now here we are. At this very moment the future of our city is in the hands of a greedy crack dealer looking to sell the alleged video. If it is authentic, even the most sympathetic members of Ford Nation will refrain from coming to his defence…maybe.

But if you are a Ford supporter there’s really only one thing to say: We told you so.

Stephen Harper – A Minister Past his Prime

BY: James Di Fiore

History will probably be kind to Stephen Harper.  If one were to be honest about his political career, it would be difficult not to place him in the upper echelon of Canadian prime ministers. By the time he leaves office he will be in the top 6 of the longest serving prime ministers in history. You may not have agreed with him, you may even hate him, or you could consider yourself one of his loyal supporters. But no matter how you perceive him, the man knows how the game is played.

As Machiavellian as Harper is, one must wonder how much time he has left at the top of the political class in Canada. Ironically, most of the cracks in his power formed after he finally won his long sought majority government. Backbench MPs with a libertarian or religious bent began to publicly criticize party muzzling. Defense spending on the F-35 file was a staple in the news cycle for months. The Robocalls investigation is far from over, and the latest Auditor General’s report can’t account for over 3 billion dollars meant for counter terrorism measures.  The temporary foreign workers issue might be the worst of all, especially now that we know it accounts for almost one third of the government’s “900, 000 net new jobs”, a centerpiece of their answers during Question Period.

All of these issues are symptoms of a government increasingly vulnerable to the temptations of majority status. Indeed, as a prime minister of a minority parliament Harper was predictably more measured in how he governed. When he prorogued Parliament to avoid a coalition challenge from the opposition it came off as cynical and calculating. But it worked. A majority government gave him new opportunities, and the temptation to lead through ideological aspirations manifested through omnibus legislation and a transformational mindset. Harper, who had begun his political career stoking the flames of anti-Trudeauism, began to fit nicely into the oppositional label of being a leader with a hidden agenda. Unlike Pierre Trudeau, who served three consecutive terms in majority governments, Harper would be forced to adjust his public image from ideologue to centrist to a modern conservative. He had hoped Canadians would follow him, tilted towards conservatism by both his influence and a natural societal progression. But his majority was enabled by just 39% of the people, the smallest majority government by percentage in Canadian history and not the ideal starting point for a wanna-be transformational prime minister.

Cue the perennial, predictable cracks. The omnibus legislation was out of date, pillared by legislative caricatures such as super jails, lax environmental policies and new rules meant to silence intergovernmental workers like researchers and scientists. Harper’s loyal yes-men began to regularly praise Israel, condemn the United Nations and subtly float climate change denials. Not to say you can’t have nice things to say about Israel, but Canadians are not used to platitudes being expressed about a nation so unimportant to our economic or social well being at such a repetitive pace. To many, this over-the-top collection of platitudes was either confusing or cheap, meant to impress or placate rather than genuinely serve the Canadian people. The slams against the UN have been a neocon staple in the United States, but Canada was not used to that kind of rhetorical sloganeering. As for climate change denial, this has been more incremental and far more subliminal. The conservative base is a westernized, oil soaked clan of evangelicals and libertarians, but the rest of the country rightly believes climate change is real and, more importantly, worth fighting against. Conventional wisdom indicates Harper knows his ideology is not shared by at least 75% of the nation; so omnibus legislation is less about a hidden agenda, and more about leapfrogging consensus.

This inability to influence Canadians of a new conservatism means Harper will likely ride into the sunset in 2016, the year following the next federal election. Until then, his calculations will lead him to one of two places. Either he will smartly revert back to a more pragmatic role near the center, or he will continue the experiment of attempting to forcibly indoctrinate Canadians to the right. Reverting back will mean betraying his principles, and the task of indoctrinating a nation whose pulse is demonstrably moderate will ultimately hand power back to the opposition. In other words, he has already piqued politically, and the process of plucking a new leader from his ranks has likely been stirring in his mind for at least 6 months.

Harper is a polarizing politician. And while history may be kind to him, one must wonder if ideological ambitions will play a role in just how kind history will be in the end.

Harper VS Trudeau – Canadians Want a Fight

Conservatives in Canada could learn a tough lesson over the next 2 years. If the past month taught them anything, and there is no evidence to say it has, it should be as follows: do not blow the dust off the same old political playbook you have been recycling for half a dozen elections. There is something demonstrably different about this political cycle.

His name is Justin Trudeau. And no, he is not a proven leader whatsoever.

He is not the Canadian Barack Obama. Trudeau is a privileged trust fund kid who is just beginning to shed his precocious image, and at age 41 being precocious is not a favorable quality. He over annunciates his words, he sometimes refers to himself in the third person and his off the top banter is often ill advised. All that being said, his arrival happens to coincide with some of the most interesting political caveats the country has ever seen.

First and foremost, young people are becoming engaged. This has always been something conservatives feared, but the old adage is true; young people, for the most part, lean left. Always have, always will. The 2010 Calgary Mayoral election was the start of a brand new idea in electoral campaigns. Grass roots strategies reinforced a savvy, online presence that was not just directed towards younger voters, but executed by young people as well. Naheed Nenshi’s campaign ought to be in political science textbooks across the country. Trudeau knows this and has added something Nenshi did not have; name recognition and celebrity status.

Secondly, the recent presidential elections south of the border has made Canadians universally repulsed by dirty politics. We don’t just dislike ominous music, grainy footage and quotes taken out of context, we find it to be fundamentally un-Canadian and lacking even moderate ethics.

So when the conservatives released their first attack ad against Trudeau most people were expecting something to snooker the newly elected leader, something he couldn’t run from. Namely, himself. But instead of a savvy attack ad spotlighting Trudeau’s inexperience or rookie status, the conservatives opted for a misleading collage of half truths, cheap shots and blatant dishonesty. They did adjust their playbook from the days when they hammered Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, only they went in the wrong direction.

If the conservatives were playing baseball, this strategy of mocking the young Liberal leader would be akin to trying to execute the hidden ball trick. Sure, they may fool their opponents and the fans once in a while, but if everyone is expecting the same trick all the time, how successful will it be in the long run?

Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair and the NDP are coming apart at the seams. Unlike the conservatives who are mildly concerned about the impact of Trudeau’s leadership, the NDP are frustrated at the prospect of their popularity lasting just one election cycle. When Trudeau made his first appearance at Question Period, Mulcair tried to overshadow the youngster by frantically screaming his inquiries about the temporary foreign workers issue, and by doing so he slid nicely into the exact generalizations his enemies have branded him with since he became leader; he’s angry, unstable and arrogant. You can now add ‘spooked’ to that list.

Not to be outdone, Harper managed to squander a golden opportunity to expose Trudeau’s lack of experience in the aftermath of the recent bombings in Boston. Trudeau sloppily pontificated about the motives and mindset of the bomber(s) saying “But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded.” This was a gaffe. Not only was it too soon to ponder the broader question of societal exclusion, or even mental illness, after all there was no suspect at the time of his interview. But it also showed Trudeau’s lack of statesmanship. But rather than take the high road and offer unsolicited advice to his young counterpart, a move that would have made Harper seem less wooden then he normally does (the backdrop of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral would have been a bonus too), he politicized the act of terror by accusing Trudeau of rationalizing the killings. In case you need a refresher on American politics, Harper’s statement was one knee-jerk away from saying Trudeau had emboldened the terrorists. It was a missed opportunity, for sure, but it was so much more than that. It punctuates a long term problem for a government who overtly disrespects everything about their rivals and reveals the mind of a Prime Minister who may be past his prime. He seems, for all intents and purposes, out of ideas.

It also doesn’t help to have your parliamentary mouthpiece oversimplify global terrorism. Pierre Poilievre, a normally articulate conservative MP, wanted to punctuate the idea that terrorists should not be coddled. The problem? Nobody said they should. Additionally, every intelligence agency on the planet believes in finding the root causes of terrorism. This technique is Tea Party politics in its purest form. What Poilievre was really doing, especially when he doubled down on that statement in the House the next day, was deliberately watering down the electorate by simplifying terrorism into a good VS evil context. In short, the conservatives do not trust Canadians with details. Trudeau, while silly for being so quick to opine about root causes, Forrest Gumped the conservatives through his gaffe and accidentally forced them to reply through several gaffes of their own.

A simple way to take the wind out of Trudeau’s sail immediately is for the Harper government to go positive. If Trudeau predicts more attack ads, hit the airwaves with your government’s success stories instead. If Trudeau stumbles during question period, don’t smirk with glee but ignore it and answer the question. The more Trudeau looks like he has a secret copy of the conservative playbook, the more attractive his leadership becomes.

One guarantee over the next two years will be Trudeau’s broken promise of not going negative. He genuinely believes he can win without attacking Harper, a monumental error in judgment. He has the opportunity to attack differently from his rivals who are stuck in a time warp where overly simplistic, inaccurate ads hit hard and resonate. They don’t. Not anymore. The only people responding to the school yard ads where facts don’t matter are the base of the conservative party and over the hill consultants who haven’t been relevant since Bob Rae was premiere of Ontario. And for all intents and purposes, this base has exactly zero influence on the rest of Canada. The conservative movement has relied on a peculiar strategy regarding their most loyal supporters; misinformation and ignorance. The last Alberta election spotlighted this disconnect when the far-right Wild Rose Party were trounced by the Progressive Conservatives. Even in Alberta, the bastion of conservativeness in Canada, people were gun shy to throw their votes behind climate change denying, uncomfortably religious people who more closely resembled the worst of the Tea Party movement rather than the best of Canadiana.

This country simply does not have the market necessary to move in a direction where science doesn’t matter, where sloganeering replaces substance and where condescension trumps respect for voters. This is Canada. We believe in man made global warming. We believe in evidence based policies. We believe marketing ploys should only be used when selling products we don’t need. But we do need leadership.

And if you are Justin Trudeau, stop pretending you are still getting to know Canadians. We got it. We get you. Now tell us your ideas or lose us forever.

And for heaven’s sake, put the boxing gloves back on and let’s see a fight.

Stephen Harper: Leading through Apathy Since 2006

Some say it’s a weak opposition. Others say Stephen Harper is a centrist at heart. Heck, some even call him the most intelligent politician in Canadian history.

 

Or, just maybe, it’s a lot simpler than any of that.

 

Take this past week. First, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unveils the federal budget for Canadians. The headlines are uniform in the daily papers of all political stripes: the budget contains very little details and no new information pertaining to several austerity-centric measures. It was as though he thought Canadians would shrug and move on.

 

And he was probably right.

 

Then, just a few days later, our media inundates Canadians with, wait for it, panda bears. Yeah, that’s right. Our prime minister is tight lipped about the budget which affects all citizens, but he rolls out the red carpet and puppeteers the media talking heads for the symbolic gesture of China loaning our country cute little panda bears.

 

Even Ron Burgundy would call that a slap in the face.

 

So why is Prime Minister Harper so blatant in his lack of details with the public on vital domestic issues? The answer is two fold. First, he believes Canadians are ruled by apathy and a lack of appetite for politics in general. History shows he’s probably right about that. Second, his entire style of governing depends on apathy. But that’s just the beginning.

 

In order for a government to run itself on the collective apathy of a nation, it must run like a bloated PR agency. While most governments use public relations and media speak when handling the press, the Harper government uses these tools to handle the citizens of Canada, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

They don’t even try to hide it anymore. During the days of a minority government Harper could afford to communicate just enough to get by, and even when he prorogued Parliament in order to stave off the warning of a coalition government, he simply retreated to 24 Sussex until apathy was in full force, then placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of separatists and their enablers.

 

With the cost of the F-35 fighters jets he stretched out an explanation for so long, Canadians practically begged the media to stop reporting. Same with changes to EI and the Canadian pension plan. Same with the Nexen deal. In fact, giving China an all-access pass to our most profitable industry without giving Canadians details was only topped by the condescending manner in which he defended Canadian interests: by passing new rules on foreign takeovers the week AFTER the deal was sealed.

 

After all, it would only be in the news cycle for a few days, then its off to Apathy Land again for Canadians.

 

The worst part about leading this way is not how insulting it is to ordinary people. That’s just the accent. The real stinger is how majority government status prevents Harper and Co. from even trying to appear as if he is genuinely interested in the pulse of the nation. He isn’t, and until that pulse reads anything other than “in a coma”, Canadians should feel ashamed and responsible for everything this government does, quietly or not.

Obama vs Romney II – The Presidential Debate Recap

By: James Di Fiore

In the run-up to the second presidential debate there was an interesting caveat being discussed by the self congratulatory cable news network, CNN. Eager to guarantee themselves as large an audience as possible, CNN talking heads focused much of their pre-debate coverage on moderator Candy Crowley. Crowley was the first woman in 20 years to moderate a presidential debate, and her performance may have set back female moderators another 20 years.

Crowley could not keep either candidate under control, with Mitt Romney talking over her for nearly a full minute at one point. Barack Obama was also uncooperative, extending his answers long after Crowley had attempted to move to new questions or follow up discussions. Romney went as far as flatly rejecting Crowley with a stern “No!” as she tried to wrestle back her role, an awkward moment making Romney look like a bully and Crowley a meek intermediate.

The debate featured two candidates with starkly different approaches and delivery styles. Obama began the debate with an almost whiny cadence, a bi-product of both the town hall format and his tactical strategy of not repeating the staleness of his first debate. Whenever Obama tried to hammer Romney with effective responses he delivered them with all the zeal and excitement of a laundry list. While he did run down all the most glaring inconsistencies in Romney’s platform, he seemed annoyed at Romney instead of being energetic and substantive with his delivery.

Romney’s problems were more on the surface. He fumbled his words and came up with bizarre ad libs when under the gun. When trying to convey his record as governor of hiring more women to his cabinet than any other state, he spoke of receiving “binders full of women” from women’s groups, setting off the Twitterverse and cementing the debate’s most talked about quote. He also borrowed a page from Obama’s first debate strategy by not addressing the most aggressive accusations from the president, including the across-the-board 20% tax cut and which tax loopholes Romney would close. The one seemingly easy issue to hammer Obama with was Libya, but Romney fumbled that topic by challenging what Obama said a day after the attack. Obama correctly told the audience that he referred to the attack as an “act of terror”. Romney awkwardly suggested the president did not call it an act of terror until 2 weeks after the tragedy took place, prompting Crowley to weigh in and inform Romney that Obama had indeed made the statement. If Romney was more savvy he would have focused on the Obama administration’s inconsistent statements and called out the White House for being either incompetent or dishonest.

Obama appeared to win the debate, although it wasn’t the obvious landslide Romney had in their initial head-to-head. The president’s delivery was once again a tad lackluster, but he did not avoid laying out some of the most obvious arguments this time. Romney had far too many errors in judgment and silly improvisational phrases to be considered the winner by most serious pundits, and he will have to shed that unsettling laugh if he wants to win over the audience for the last debate on October 22^nd. Obama should not get cocky either and needs to understand that while he won this debate, it was not as good a performance as Romney had in the first debate, despite the half truths and outright distortions.

As an aside, America’s undecided voters might be some of the most attention starved individuals on the planet. If you are unsure who you should vote for between these two candidates this late in the game, not only are you not paying attention, you are also not a very serious person. But that, as they say, is an entirely different kind of debate.

Harper, Trudeau and Canadian Political Theater

If Trudeau wins leadership the next election will be the first of its kind

By: James Di Fiore

Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau all of a sudden have a lot in common: they are both starring in new roles in an old theater, Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

Harper is currently king, but his new role will be a majority government incumbent.Trudeau plays the role of the prince looking for the same crown his father once wore. It’s all very theatrical, don’t you know.

The scripts for both sides are being written, ancillary issues are being considered and then discarded or approved. Real-time scandals and audience polling carve out the plot. Remembering your lines is crucial. In Canadian politics, this is going to be about as entertaining as it gets.

Harper and Trudeau both have clear strengths in opposite disciplines. You won’t see the prime minister waxing poetic to a throng of youthful supporters, just as you won’t see Trudeau giving a speech about how interest rates and subsidies help foster growth in energy sector commodities. These differences are stark and may prove to be a generational difference pitting the young against baby boomers and seniors. At least, that’s what Harper is hoping for. Conservatives at all levels of government in Canada have something other than faux fiscal conservatism in common; they all believe in the tried and true theory that young people will always be apathetic. It never fails. Until recently, that is.

In 2010, Calgary mayoral candidate Naheed Nenshi was looking like a 2^nd or even 3^rd place finisher. All pundits and pollsters saw conservative Ric McIvor as the front runner. About two weeks before the election I had a meet and greet with McIvor and his chief campaign adviser. I asked the adviser how they plan on mobilizing the youth vote. He replied emphatically “We aren’t. They never show up.” Two weeks later Nenshi won the election, and all the pundits, including Nenshi himself, credited his victory to mobilizing young people with grass roots tactics and inspirational dialogue. The campaign should be in text books and considered required reading for every political science student in the country.

And while federal and municipal politics are worlds apart, the overriding lesson is still the same: if you speak to them, they will vote. We can already see Canadian conservatives preemptively brand Trudeau as an unproven messiah being propped up by bleeding hearts and hippies. This shows both the cynicism and desperation of staunch conservatives who genuinely despise Trudeau but understand he still may win an election for the Liberals. It’s a schizophrenic existence to believe your political rival is both unqualified and a serious contender.

Meanwhile, Harper is still in the honeymoon stage of his first majority government. More omnibus bills are being drafted, more environmental regulations are being scrapped and more scrutiny is being lofted towards the government in the form of tainted meat and abortion debates. Forever the pragmatist, Harper knows his reign cannot sustain itself through polarizing social issues or defensive posturing. He has a tangible problem right now: how do I feed red meat to my base, maintain crucial support and continue to be perceived as governing from the center? The answer is the same now as it was in 2006 when Harper won his first minority government: rely on voter apathy while incrementally indoctrinating Canadians to the conservative fold. It is not only an uphill climb, it’s also very unrealistic. When you lead a country to a majority government with just 39% of the popular vote, you have a shaky majority. And while electoral reformers see this as evidence to support ideas like proportional representation, the reality is this kind of majority government is difficult to maintain.

All of this posturing and media driven showdown may look like it leaves Thomas Mulcair out in the cold. The conventional wisdom is as follows: Mulcair needs to block the Liberals from eating up seats in Quebec while growing party support in Ontario. Trudeau could be problematic for Mulcair if he can charm Quebeckers into coming back to the Liberal fold, and Harper is quietly relying on the vote being split in a province where he is enormously unpopular. Naturally, this potential reality makes merger talk behind the scenes more prevalent, an annoyance to party faithfuls who still have hope in ideology or their party’s historical importance for the country.

There is one dormant caveat Trudeau is thinking about constantly. If the youth can become inspired enough to shed their apathy and become engaged in politics, he will change the political landscape in Canada, at least for one election. Like Nenshi in Calgary, Trudeau needs to inspire young people, give them a seat at the political table and tap into the moderate wings of student unions and the Occupy movements. A measured approach to both these demographics is a tight-wire act and a tough task for any politician, especially a relative rookie on the national scene. However, perhaps Trudeau is the first Canadian politician we have seen who has the ability to throw roses to all sides without coming off as pandering. Or, perhaps his efforts will be seen as opportunistic and without substance, echoing Trudeau’s current critics who already believe the heir apparent is in way over his head.

But it all makes for great theater.

Is Russell Simmons the black Perez Hilton?

Uncle Rush ain’t the man he used to be

By: James Di Fiore

Imagine we are back in 1985. Russell Simmons and Def Jam founder Rick Rubin are quietly lighting the match that would set hip hop ablaze. Imagine during that time someone came up to you and said “In 25 years, Simmons will be the majority shareholder of a sleazy tabloid magazine.”

Anyone in their right mind would have dismissed that thought immediately. Hell, you may have even got a smack in the face for saying such a thing. This was the guy who started the careers of Run D.M.C., LL Cool J, Beastie Boys and other legendary acts. Back then, hip hop was not just an emerging musical genre, it was a rallying cry against corporate America. Sure, Run D.M.C. inked a deal with Adidas, but overall hip hop was the closest thing to protest music since the 1960s. The lyrics were not just the often cited biographies of kids living the ghetto experience; there was also the political statements surrounding the idea that black youth were being used by corporate America. The universal idea of predatory marketing and influence over the purchasing choices among the youth by lifestyle brands was not up for debate. Everyone knew it was happening. You either became apathetic towards it, railed against it or fought to become an entrepreneur.

Simmons had always been a good businessman. He first signed a deal with CBS worth $600, 000 when he and Rubin started Def Jam. In 1998, after nurturing the careers of his stable of artists, he sold his stake to MCA for an estimated $100 million, his first windfall made from the scene he helped pioneer.

You can probably pinpoint Simmons’ departure from being a grass roots pioneer and role model at the time he sold his Def Jam stake. While it might be presumptuous to claim he was ever an activist for underprivileged youth, Simmons was at the very least a figurehead in their collective struggle. But slowly his corporatist persona began to shine through. In several interviews he has defended the embedding of products inside song lyrics by artists, a practice that befuddles the hip hop purist. Simmons explains this by saying you should only sell products you believe in, ignoring the basic idea that art and commercialism are two separate monsters. Indeed, an artist certainly has the right to do what they want with their music, but there are many who feel this practice has cheapened hip hop. Not to mention Simmons has often acted as a facilitator between corporations and rappers who are looking to get paid by plugging a fast food chain or fashion line in songs that are easily forgettable and designed solely for the plug.

Simmons is an expert at justifying this kind of predatory marketing. His attitude is shielded by a public image drenched in yoga and activism, a paradoxical partnership where selling products inside music is justified through his apparent admiration for Deepak Chopra and the 99%. Perhaps he is merely the first of his kind; a hip hop mogul with one eye on his bank account and the other on social justice. Reconciling those two seemingly opposite mind sets is one thing, but his latest venture leaves little room for spirituality or the realness of the ghetto.

Enter Global Grind.

Global Grind, for all intents and purposes, is an online tabloid magazine. Taking a page out of US Weekly or Perez Hilton’s site, GG features gossipy stories and provocative headlines, usually centering around Kim Kardashian’s ass or what Beyonce might be wearing. The watered down editorials are designed to reach the largest yet least informed audience possible, making his often repeated claims of being in touch with spirituality either a lie or something he no longer mixes with business. It really is the black National Enquirer.

Supporters will say he is simply continuing his success as an entrepreneur, but eventually one has to ask: how does a man who relentlessly preaches about naturalism, spirituality, yoga and ‘The Secret’-type philosophy reconcile being the propagator of a silly tabloid? How does a man who used to be a beacon in the black community balance that reputation with his several appearances alongside a birther like Donald Trump? Does he define his principles differently than most? Can Simmons throw roses to all sides and expect his fans to continue crediting him as being the guy he was a quarter century ago?

There is a backlash happening since GG first launched. His Facebook page contains daily criticisms from presumably former fans who have had enough of his transformation from pioneer to smut peddler. And while it is likely a staffer who posts his social networking content, his profile has taken a beating among those who once respected him the most.

A gifted orator, Simmons is great at explaining away his evolution, but editorials, headlines and critics are also becoming effective at pointing out his now schizophrenic public image. You can almost picture him doing a downward dog onto a pile of MacDonald’s french fries as cameras record him explaining it all away. That’s all fine and good, but some of us remember the words of Public Enemy, the group he helped put on the map: nowadays, when it comes to Uncle Rush, don’t believe the hype.

He ain’t the man he used to be.

Know Your Enemies…then brand them accordingly.

Why the Next Liberal Leader Needs to be More Like Stephen Harper

 By: James Di Fiore

It was the worst kept secret in Ottawa – that former Ontario premier, Bob Rae, who used to don NDP orange, would eventually be able to run for the leadership of his new party: the recently decimated federal Liberal Party of Canada.

To the Harper conservatives, it is an early Christmas present. But they have their own issues to sift through.

The Omnibus Budget

When Harper was the leader of the loyal opposition, he had many things to say about the ability of a majority Parliament to consolidate seemingly unrelated bills into an omnibus collage.

“First, there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus bill we have before us attempts to amend several different existing laws.

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?”

It is the kind of quote that should be repeated over and over again. But this is Canada, and only one party is effective at branding their opponents. For Thomas Mulcair and Bob Rae to capitalize on this hypocritical stance regarding omnibus legislation, they would need a competent communications strategy. Neither party can make such claim, and unless Harper decides to commit suicide, this hypocrisy will end up like the rest of his scandals and missteps: forgotten.

Bob Rae’s Leadership Goals

The conservatives, who have trumped all other federal parties in effective communications for the past 15 years, already banked on this happening months ago when they released a preemptive ad asking Canadians if Bob Rae can be trusted as Prime Minister. After all, he left Ontario with one of the largest deficits in its history and took a policy swipe at his own base while doing so.

A first school of thought, and one which seems to be the prevailing opinion in political circles, is as follows: a track record as rocky as Rae’s will not be able to escape the relentless negative branding by Harper’s conservatives and still emerge as a leader Canadians can trust. Conservatives are great at attack ads, and with Harper’s insatiable lust to ultimately destroy the Liberal Party, Canadians are about to witness a new age in negative advertisements. We are at the very beginning of a political era in Canada where parties will begin crucifying their opponents even when the next election is still years away. In fact, it would be a good bet to believe the conservatives already have a few ads in the queue, trickling them out every time a new opportunity materializes.

After the Liberal convention last January, when a staggering number of red faithfuls made their way to Ottawa to reignite their party, whispers already began to persist regarding Rae’s ambitions as leader. He is a solid speaker and made his mark that weekend, leaving skeptics wondering if he could effectively combat the attacks from Harper and the newly invigorated NDP. That momentum was squandered, however, as the Liberals decided to go into hiding instead of striking the hot iron the convention had provided.

But there may be a chess game quietly taking place at the Liberal executive these days. Most sources indicate the Liberals are universal in their confidence in Rae. This is probably more of a communications strategy than a reality as other insiders are concerned Rae is simply damaged goods. What is obvious is that Liberals need to become more savvy in their public relations, cementing themselves as the only moderate alternative to two opposite yet equally ideological counterparts. This goal of becoming a more effective party in the world of sound bites and ads is a steeper climb with Rae as leader. Rae will keep the Liberals on the defensive for the most part, constantly being badgered about his time as Ontario Premier. The conservatives are masters at getting the press to parrot their criticisms of other politicians (see Michael Ignatieff) and will leave little wiggle room for the Libs to navigate through.

Justin Trudeau’s Leadership Moxie

After the announcement of Rae’s leadership eligibility a media coup took place. On the day it was announced, polls began popping up showing Trudeau as the de facto favourite if he chose to run. His positives are higher, his negatives are lower. And as a sitting Member of Parliament, he is more popular than his 307 colleagues. In short, he is Canada’s only political celebrity.

And he acts like one too.

Trudeau has a lot going for him – his charm, his name recognition, his age – and he has a lot going against him – his charm, his name recognition and his age. Alberta and Saskatchewan, still bitter over the National Energy Program ushered in by Pierre Trudeau, point a finger at Justin as if he was pulling the levers of power for dear old dad. Justin was 9 years old when the NEP was enacted, but this is another example of the savvy, if not Mad Men inspired communications of Harper’s conservative party: brand your enemies so that when decades go by folks will only remember our version of who our enemies are.

It’s working. Ask any Albertan about Justin Trudeau and they will almost certainly begin with his father’s policies. Rae’s name is now synonymous with his 5 years as Ontario Premier (ending 17 years ago) and the tribulations that went along with his administration. Harper once again was able to frame his opponent into the most unflattering career snapshot available and get people to numbly agree.

But what if that worked the other way? What if Harper was asked to brand his own persona in the worst light possible? What would it look like?

If we were to begin in the present day political climate in Ottawa, with the Omnibus Bill being fillibustered in Parliament as we speak, the aforementioned quote would be the singular message coming out of conservative rank and filers.

Reporters would get tired of the repetition, but that’s how you know it is working. Harper has made a career out of his non-interaction with the media, so it seems like a great tactic when trying to brand him as a hypocrite. If the question is “How are opposition parties going to do anything other than stall this bill?” Opposition MPs should reply, “The Prime Minister himself is against omnibus legislation. He has questioned how constituents can feel represented when so much legislation is crammed into one bill. That’s the Prime Minister himself talking. He is either a hypocrite or against his own legislation.”

And so on.

But try as they may, opposition parties in Canada are impotent in cementing an idea for the public. They are also undisciplined. Without an effective voter relations strategy and the ability to stay on message, even when it feels wrong to do so, they simply cannot overcome the machine the conservatives have been building for decades. As it stands, Stephen Harper is the only politician in Canada who could destroy Stephen Harper. With that kind of reality, there’s no wonder he is getting cocky on his perch.

Mary Kennedy Found Dead in Apparent Suicide

Details are still coming. Preliminary reports indicate a possible suicide by hanging.

Romney’s Business Background – The Bain of his Campaign?

2012 will be known as the year when political ads began to modernize. There are three main reasons for this upgrade; the internet provides enhanced exposure for campaigns who understand how to viralize their ads; production value is now in the hands of professionals instead of paper-pushing campaign managers; everyone wants young people who have increased engagement over the past 4 years. They do not vote, but they might.

Here is Obama’s first swing at Romney. It is mild but eventually it will be relentless.