Distemper of our times: a polling report

On Monday night, the Canada 2020 organization held a gathering at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, featuring three major national pollsters: Bruce Anderson of Harris-Decima, Nik Nanos and Frank Graves. They pulled in a big crowd, and rewarded them with tons of fuel for thought. 

Anderson had a neat, new survey on whether a Tea Party could thrive here in Canada. I've written a story about it here. But I've also thought it worth sharing with you some words from Nanos, about what he calls "disturbing forces" under the numbers all the pollsters are  gathering about the current state of politics in Canada. It's long, but really worth a read. 

Now what I’d like to do is shift gears into what I consider at least the powerful, dangerous forces that we’re going to have to deal with and they’re not ideological. They have to deal with what I consider emerging trends that are kind of coming into clarity in the public mind. 

Those are the forces of disaggregation, the forces of discontent and the forces of dilution ... of power. 

And I think these three forces actually represent what’s really happening and all the numbers that we’re seeing are simply symptoms of these forces at work. 

Now first: the forces of disaggregation. Think of how we consume media now. Right? In the past, we’d be exposed to a diversity of views. Think of it this way, with the increasing number of Canadians that get their news online, they’re getting mass customization of their news, a variation of drinking their own bathwater, listening to views that are their own. How can you compare that to a model where, every morning, Canadians open up their newspaper and not only do they read the stories that they’re interested in, but they are exposed to other views, other information, other pieces of data on a wide diversity of issues? How do we rally Canadians for a great national cause when we all have our own customized news feeds?  What does that mean for political discourse, when we’re at war, when we’re at peace, when we’re in battles. I would say that our ability and the ability of politicians to coalesce and find solutions, to kind of take up a national cause, has actually been diminished by what I consider the forces of disaggregation. And it’s made it more difficult for other parties to deal with this.

When we look at other parliamentary democracies, similar to our own, they’re all having minority governments -- the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. What do you think is going on there? They’re dealing with the same forces that we’re dealing with. 

And another thing to put on the table. I talked about one possible scenario that could be disruptive to Canada, if a particular federal party was in power and something happened provincially.

You know the last time Canada fought the referendum and separatists, that was before the Internet. Right? The next battle will take place on the Internet  and it will be very different than the past. It will be very difficult for national voices, newspapers, television, radio, to get their message out. And it won’t be pleasant, in my view. 

Now in terms of the forces of political discontent, I think there’s a fundamental disconnect between the everyday lives of Canadians, and democracy. That they look at what happens in the House of Commons and they don’t see themselves.  And the other thing is that our democracy, the House of Commons for example, is losing its exclusivity as an intermediary of democratic dialogue. That the Internet is now a challenger. That for young Canadians, who are not happy with what they see at Question Period, what they see our politicians do, or how they see parties operate, that they can engage in democratic activism without being a member of a political party, without watching what happens in Question Period, but by participating in democracy on the Internet.  And a lot of this is fed by what I’ll say is the discontent they see in our traditional democratic structure. 

The other manifestation of the forces of discontent is what I would call “vote suppression strategies.” You know what? If you can’t persuade someone to vote for you, the next best thing is to try to keep them home. Right? We’ve seen Conservatives being very effective, at not necessarily trying to persuade  or attract voters, but to actually repel voters from their challengers. And I think the last election was a case in point. About 875,000 fewer voters among the Liberals -- the Conservatives were very effective , not necessarily at persuading people to vote Conservative, but at repelling people,  from the that time Liberal choice. 

And in terms of what I’ll say the third force, which is the force of political dilution, this is a good kind of segueway to talk about the Green Party.  And I think the Green Party and also the New Democrats have a fixation on being a national party. Well, the thing is that they are not a national party. They do run candidates in each riding across the country, but I think the challenge for the Green Party is getting over that first member, electing that first member is actually going to be quite difficult. .... But I can’t see a major breakthrough for the Green Party, not because there isn’t appetite or interest in voting Green, but just because there aren’t what I’ll say boots on the ground, so to speak, in terms of organization. 

So to wrap up: expect political instability and turbulence. I believe we’re at a risky but unintended place  in  our democracy -- that the forces of disaggregation are undermining our national ethos and capacity, that the forces of discontent are undermining the relevance of party politics and party leaders to Canadians, and the forces of dilution are undermining our political parties. 

Comments

[Joseph K. Mayer]

Hello Susan,
Thanks for that summary. I wasn't able to go to that event, so this is very helpful. Lots of insight from Nik, as usual. Very interesting what is happening to our democracy. I suppose we will drift around in little pockets of customized everything, before coalescing around some big idea when circumstances warrant.
I think the current situation is a sign of our general complacency and self-satisfaction; we don't take politics seriously because most of us are comfortable enough and don't really care what happens in Parliament. And most MPs respond by wasting a fair bit of time on superficial stuff like the Maclean's anti-Quebec story, or deciding not to scrap the long-gun registry (in the latter case, lots of sound and fury to maintain the status quo).
When (or if) politics is about important things again, I think voters might pay more attention (though the echo chamber of "customized news" will probably be a permanent feature).
Yours,
Joe

[cairwin@sympatico.ca]

Interesting observations in the summary. As well as what was pointed out, I'd add that the anonymity of the internet makes it an even more volatile factor in political discourse. I'd also include the media in his generalisation on the disconnect between the public and politicians. Many of our leading media types no longer seem to have a real understanding of the problems facing we average income householders these days. But I do disagree with his argument that it is the Conservatives who have kept the usually-vote-Liberal at home - the Liberals themselves have contributed to that problem:they are not the victims.

[Darwin O'Connor]

Your article seems flawed.

The poll said many people in Canada are frustrated or angry at "government and elites". I am frustrated and sometimes angry at them, but I'm a socialist, so certainly not a potential Tea Partyer whose central tenant is less government.

[Steve]

The Political parties seem to be fighting for votes amongst a group of Canadians that care to vote. Based on voter turnout trends the “pool” of prospects is getting smaller. People are demanding that politicians be both a trustee and a delegate. A person to advocate and a promoter of local interests and concerns in the riding they represent. Instead we have petty party politics that are divisive. The result is that people are turning away. Maybe it is time to eliminate the parties and let us vote for the best candidate that will actually listen to their riding. The Government should not provided any party funding.

[maps]

Amazing that they (and the media, Susan included) just don't seem to get that the Tea Party is not a "party" per se but rather a loose coalition of very angry and disgruntled individuals arguing for a relatively common cause. Try to find a single organization in the States that speaks for the Tea Partiers... a single leader... you won't find one. It's main theme is throw the entitled bums out. There are Tea Partiers that want very conservative positions on morality but that's not the "Tea Party" position. Those are things like reduced government, reduced taxes, getting government out of areas where they have no constitutional jurisdiction. The left likes to characterize the tea partiers as supporters of things like anti-abortion or the NRA but you won't find that in any tea party positions.

[Aongasha]

Susan
Personally I think the media and its Gotcha!Journalism school of thought, has in large measure contributed to the disaggregaton in terms of media consumption. Basically nobody trusts nor believes the MSM anymore. They are perceived as being biased and wannabe Woodsteins (as in all the presidents men). I defy any fair minded person who takes the time to sit back and really pay attention to the Ottawa Press Gallery and their media outlets, to arrive at any other conclusion. Worse still, they are all in denial or cynical enough that they don't care.
One can hardly be blamed for believing that their only goal in life seems to be to secure a place with their fellows, as highly paid flacks for Ottawa lobbying firms. So why should we read or listen to them?
Thus the popularity of the Internet.

[Eric Walton]

Rather than seeing what is happening as an "unintended place in our democracy"
an alternative analysis would be that the "collective intelligence" of the Canadian population is repeatedly generating political outcomes that point towards change in our electoral system - like perhaps proportional representation - where all votes count and important alternative voices are heard to address very serious present and near-future challenges.

The political class got this message in the U.K. but clearly we will need to go through a few more minority governments before this message gets through to the mainstream parties who are still stuck in the past. National unity is certainly not helped by continuing a First-Past-The-Post electoral system that rewards regional block voting.