Weekend reading: On the subject of fear

Most political junkies got their fill of Harper-government  retrospectives last weekend, on the fifth anniversary of the Conservatives taking power. But there's one more must-read viewpoint  out there this weekend, penned by Andrew Coyne in Macleans. It's headlined: "The Damage Done By Doing So Little," if that helps as a summary. 

What's good about this piece, in my view, is that it punctures a myth I kept hearing repeated all last weekend from the punditocracy -- specifically that this government "got the big things right" in the past five years. Coyne, at essence a contrarian, forces us to examine what those "big things" are, beyond a ballooning deficit, which is big indeed. 

And if you're still in the mood for some assumption-rattling, then Susan Riley's column in today's Ottawa Citizen serves the same function. Riley, though, is looking ahead rather than backward, laying out the broad scope of a future election campaign, whenever that does come. Specifically, she's talking about the axis of fear: 

The ballot question may be what voters fear most: illegal immigrants, rampant crime, Russian bombers and the census taker, or growing income inequality, deteriorating social services and stagnating middle-class incomes.

 

It's good to see a couple of columnists stepping out from behind the wall of assumptions/talking points in federal politics, which blithely assert that whenever the current government is doing something -- negative ads, spending wildly -- it's doing it from a position of strength. Those silly ads this week, in violation of every private-sector advertising standard (and now pulled), told me something different. Strong, confident political parties don't go on the attack for the sheer joy of it. (Well, maybe political parties composed of 14-year-olds in their basements do, but presumably there are adults in the room somewhere in Conservative Ottawa.)

Every party has attack ads -- true. Liberals had some nasty ones held in reserve always through the campaigns of the 1990s and up to this day. But I think we're forgetting a cardinal rule of politicking -- attack ads are desperate measures, used when absolutely necessary to chip away at an opponent's advantage. If they're being released now, what exactly is the Conservative party  seeing to fear out there?  And that takes us back to Coyne's column: if your government is all about keeping power, then your biggest fear must revolve around losing it. 

 

Your friendly tax cuts

All this talk of tax cuts -- and a possible tax-cut election (ed. note: ew) -- come at a time when Canadians are starting to pulling their personal income-tax returns together. The Canada Revenue Agency, which as we know is strictly non-political -- just happens to have found a way to sell the idea that tax cuts are good for you. Quite the coincidence, eh?

Here's a link to the video, or if you prefer, the transcript is below:

Transcript - Tax cuts working for you!

Susie's parents will save up to $75 on her fitness program.

The Lees will save up to $750 on their first home.

Nick can deduct up to $500 for his new tools.

And the Johnsons will split their eligible pension income.

Get tax cuts working for you.

It makes sense to file electronically and on time.

Tax cuts are part of Canada's Economic Action Plan.

A message from the Government of Canada.

Way to create those jobs there, Harper

A long time ago, a friend gave me a handy tip for how to be a baseball spectator and yell helpful things from the stands. You simply add an "er" syllable to everything -- names, nouns, verbs, whatevER. (See?) "Way to batter in there, Jeff-er."

That's probably why I'm finding it so  grating/jarring to hear the new synonym for businesses: "Job Creators." It sounds to me like bleachers chat -- and also a bit like George Bush's one-time fondness for calling America's enemies "evil-doers." I'm betting that Job Creators (patent pending) will be all over Jim Flaherty's  budget. Maybe I'll yell from the press gallery: "Way to  write a budget  there, Jimmer. Toss a tax cut in 'er."

And yes, as Kady O'Malley has reported, "job creator" is part of the new script, north and south of the Canada-U.S. border apparently.  Here are a couple of recent examples (when I say recent, I mean the last 24 hours.)

Harper Government Is Keeping Taxes Low for Canada's Job Creators

The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour, joined the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and other Ministers across the country today to highlight tax relief for Canada’s job creators.

“The economy remains our Government’s top priority. That is why we are keeping taxes low for job creators to grow our economy and create jobs for Canadian workers,” said Minister Raitt, speaking at an event at Christie Digital Systems in Kitchener, Ontario.

 

From the Tea Party's Michele Bachman last night, after the State of the Union Address:

Obamacare mandates and penalties may even force many job creators to just stop offering health insurance altogether, unless of course yours is one of the more-than-222 privileged companies or unions that has already received a government waiver under Obamacare. In the end, unless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world's finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage. That could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come.

The "Home Alone" PM and other Ignatieff remarks

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff appears to have decided that when it comes to attack ads on him, the best defence is a good laugh. So here's what he has to say about the one "positive" Conservative ad (see link here), featuring Prime Minister Harper burning the midnight oil in his office. Here's Ignatieff, during quite  a spirited speech with candidates and MPs this afternoon. Maybe I've been here too long, but I heard shades of Chretien's tone, circa 1993, in this speech  -- pride in the team, poking fun at Conservatives, a lot of we-love-Canada stuff. Here's Ignatieff, on the ads:

I don’t know whether you saw that, in the Chamber of Horrors ads they released last week, there was a very funny one. It was supposed to be the positive ad? In which, there’s this kind of lonely guy, alone, working late at night. Did you see that? Lonely guy, working alone, kind of a “Home Alone” guy?  Hasn’t got any friends, you know? Doesn’t get out much, you know? I felt kind of sorry for him really.

 

 

  Yes, yes, fine, you may say, but what did Ignatieff have to say about an election? (Note how I am assuming that if you're reading this blog, you share the tiresome fascination in Ottawa these days with election timing.) Here, verbatim, are the segments of the speech that dealt with that subject. Read them as you will; they're deliberately ambivalent. They are also, I'd bet, some of the lines he's now rehearsing for an election campaign when it does come. (And yes, he appeared to be speaking without a prepared text or a Teleprompter.) 

When you ask the question, which we were asking this morning, the question of  are we ready for an election. This isn’t a question about organization or platform or planes or detail. All of that stuff sounds pretty good to me, actually.

There’s another question, a deeper question. Are we ready to serve the people who put us here? Are we ready to fight for the Canada we love? Are we ready to fight for the Canadian family? What’s the answer to that? Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

*********

 The other thing about that ad, that little image is that he’s not listening to anybody. Total silence. … Because whatever you can say about this party, God, have we listened this year. Have we ever listened! … He shut down Parliament. We opened it up.

 

I don’t know when it’s going to come. We’re not seeking an election. We’re not seeking to provoke an election. And we make no apologies for that in times past, we’ve put partisanship aside to support government measures. But we are not the guarantor of the future of the Conservative government. We are here to oppose this government and we’re here to replace it.

 

This election, when it comes, will be a choice between governments. It is not a choice of protest votes. It is not a negative choice. It’s a chance in which Canadians can affirm, from the deepest sources of their allegiance, what values they support, what vision they want to endorse, what future course for their country.… 

 

When we ask this question about whether we’re ready, it’s not about being ready for an election. It’s about being ready to serve. It’s about being ready to fight for the country you love. The country you grew up in; the country you want to hand off to your children and grandchildren....

 

It’s not about you. It’s not about me. It’s not about him. It’s about the people who put us here. The people who put their faith in us. That hard-pressed middle-class family who wants someone to stand for them and fight for them and put ground under their feet. And we shall. Thank you.

 

Davey, Gratton and Canadian identity politics

Today, by sad coincidence, two large figures from the Canadian political past are being buried. In Toronto,  the funeral for the Liberals' Keith Davey, legendary senator and Rainmaker. In Ottawa, the funeral for Michel Gratton, the former journalist and press secretary to prime minister Brian Mulroney. 

Looking back on their respective legacies this week, there are some obvious similarities. Both men left lives in journalism to plunge into politics. Both were passionate about identity issues: Davey, an ardent nationalist; Gratton, a fiercely proud Franco-Canadian. Both had front-row seats to history at the side of larger-than-life prime ministers,  who were presiding over  tumultuous, heady times in Canadian identity politics. 

What's interesting, as a side note, is how their involvement in politics reflected changing attitudes toward the U.S. influence over Canadian politics.  Davey, charged with the job of rebuilding the Liberal party in the 1960s, unabashedly borrowed from the pioneering polling and advertising techniques emerging in U.S. politics. He loved what was going on with the Kennedy government; followed it closely, according to Christina McCall-Newman's "intimate portrait" of the Grits. 

By the time Mulroney came to power in the 1980s, however, it was less acceptable for Canadians to imitate Americans or be inspired by them. Gratton's book, So What are the Boys Saying, contained some searing examples of how Mulroney's PMO was overwhelmed when Ronald Reagan came to visit for the famous "Shamrock Summit."   Mulroney's friendship with Reagan, his free-trade campaign, etc., all sat uneasily with a Canadian public less open to the import of American politics here. 

Davey and Gratton died the same week that the Conservatives, and now the Liberals, have unleashed negative advertising against their opponents. It's not all that easy to say at the moment how Canadians are going to react. Coming on the heels of a big debate in the U.S. about political rhetoric, we seem somewhat smug about the higher tone of politics here, but there's no question that negative ads have secured a foothold in terms of tactics.  Today, at least, I find myself wondering what Davey and Gratton would have said about the ads.  

The NDP's secret strategy

Today we got a secret memo from the New Democratic Party and the news that we'll be allowed to view their campaign-ready election headquarters in the coming days. We journalists are simple folk, but we do know how to interpret this: the NDP is keen to fight an election. We know this because party people are  telling us that. We're clever that way. 

It is always dangerous to veer into what may be the alternative strategy, but I'm going to take a speculative leap. I keep wondering if the NDP wants us to think they're ready to fight an election so that their efforts to avoid an election are not portrayed as election-avoidance. In other words, they want, maybe even need a deal with Conservatives, because they saw the by-election results a couple of months ago and thought: "We're not ready!" So when they do look for a  deal to support the Conservatives around the budget, they won't be accused of desperation. (By-election results here:  NDP, not in the game.) 

Staying in this speculative vein, I also wonder if the Conservatives would be motivated to make a deal with Layton, because they need the NDP to be strong, taking votes away from the Liberals. Divided opposition, and all that -- the same thing that helped Chretien in three elections, and the same thing that has been helping Harper. The by-elections, framed as a big win for the Conservatives in Toronto, were also a glimpse into an election that only featured two parties: the Liberals and Conservatives.  That doesn't end well for the Conservatives if translated into a general election. If all the not-Conservative vote coalesces behind the Liberals, that's the end of Conservative rule. (And you wonder why they don't like coalitions?)  

All this, I stress, is speculation. But it may be a product of being in Ottawa too long -- when someone's anxious to tell you something's true, you have to wonder what's behind the effort. 

One on one: Mansbridge and the PM

This week, we've been treated to a two-part interview on CBC between Peter Mansbridge and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. If you haven't seen the interview, you may have seen the headlines, or read the transcript (in two parts, here and here.) 

But you should see the full interview (video available through links above); not just read it.  And here are a few reasons why: 

Mansbridge didn't walk into that interview looking for talking points. Far too often, especially when time is limited, we reporters throw questions at politicians that amount to a recitation of a recent development and "so what are you saying about that?" And the politicians -- can't blame them -- respond with their poll-tested, advisor-sanctioned lines. What was interesting about the interview, especially the first part, was the way in which Mansbridge asked Harper to measure himself by his own standards -- presenting him with past statements and positions and asking him to reconcile the past Harper with the current one. 

On that point... 

Harper, as we all know, is a smart man, and not because he stays up late in his office signing papers. In my long years of covering Harper in opposition and talking to him through those  years, what really distinguished him as a politician, in my view, was his ability/willingness to see the world through the eyes of his opponents.  I can't tell you how many times I talked to him about the Liberals; how he was analyzing the leadership style of Chretien and Martin, why they would do what they were doing. That's just basic smarts -- how do you win over non-supporters unless you understand why they're backing your adversary and how your foes tick? But it's surprising how few politicians will do that very thing -- respecting their challengers.   It's also surprising how little of it Harper has done as PM, wasting his time and growth potential on lashing out at perceived enemies everywhere. It's never been clear to me how he expects to lure  people away from other parties when he's casting them as stupid or evil all the time.  Or, as one Conservative said, hilariously, a few weeks ago: "Memo to (new chief of staff) Nigel Wright: Let's only be a--holes when there's a net benefit to being a--holes." 

Anyway, back to the point -- watch Harper in the interview with Mansbridge. He's watching Peter carefully, trying to understand where he's coming from, anticipating the questions, looking for clues about where the interview is going next. He even pauses and offers an analysis of the trendline in the questions, noting his surprise that  the CBC has been coming to him from "the right." 

Some people have interpreted the body language  as nervousness on the part of Harper, or hostility toward the CBC. But on some reflection,  I see it differently: I think Harper was reminded of his past self: the guy who's more intrigued by challenge than sycophancy.  I suspect he doesn't get much of that in his current job, where, as he's boasted, he makes the rules, and it seems to be a guiding PMO principle to crush anything but slavish praise and devotion. It must have been somewhat refreshing for Harper to be out of his comfort zone; it's good for all politicians to do that from time to time. 

On my local CBC radio yesterday, Canadian Press bureau chief Rob Russo said this interview will probably be studied by historians and political scientists for a real glimpse into the man who's leading Canada at present. I think Russo is right. But don't wait to watch the interview  in the future -- give it a look now. 

Ad standards

By now, most political folks will have seen the new wave of ads that the Conservatives launched (coincidentally, on Blue Monday, allegedly the most depressing day of the year.) 

What's intrigued me for some time is why political ads are not subject to the same rules as the private sector. If Michael Ignatieff was Starbucks, say, and the Conservatives were Tim Hortons (yes, I chose those examples mischievously)  those ads would probably be declared out of bounds. 

So yesterday I called Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), talked to vice-president Janet Feasby,  and learned the following things. 

• Ad standards are subject to a voluntary code in Canada and political entities are exempt. 
• Generally, Canadian ad makers and consumers aren't fond of negative ads in the private sector. Simply as a master of taste and preference, it's unlikely that a Tim Hortons, a department store  or a bank would go after a competitor in an ad in this country. But if they do, here are some guiding principles they have to heed: 
  • "Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.”  
  • “Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is deceptive.”  
  • “Advertisements shall not demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule.”  
• In the rare cases where one business does go after another, the target of the negative ad has recourse to the dispute-settlement system of ASC, and in some cases, the courts. Usually the mediation takes anywhere from two to four weeks. 

 

Even though political parties are exempt from the code, ASC wishes they would go along, just to live up to the example of the private sector, and mainly so advertising doesn't get a bad name. Here's a 2008 advisory that the council issued to that effect. 

 

Cutting red tape

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stands squarely against red tape, and not just because it's red. Needless bureaucracy wastes a lot of people's time. Bureaucracy like this, perhaps?

PM sets the stage for an election?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave an interview to PostMedia yesterday and I'm reading it as stage-setting for an imminent election. 

 It's just my interpretation of the quotes, but here's why I think we should be  braced for a budget with the famed "poison pill," leaving opposition parties no option but to bring down the government and plunge Canada into a general election. 

First, some background. Last fall, I participated in  a little panel discussion for  some NGO groups, and one of the panelists was a long-time Conservative. He mused aloud that if Harper wanted to bring down his own government, a quick way to do it would be to ask the House of Commons to approve the planned corporate tax cuts.  Cancelling those cuts is crucial to the Liberals' campaign promises -- required to pay for their promised programs on family care, etc. So -- and he really was just musing aloud, he stressed, he hadn't discussed this with anyone in government -- Harper could engineer his defeat by making the corporate tax cuts a matter of confidence. 

Now look at this quote, in the Harper interview, through that prism: 

“I won’t kid you, and I think it’s one of the reasons why I don’t think a minority will go on forever — this government will not make compromises that it believes are damaging to the Canadian economy,” Mr. Harper said.

“We have made it a fundamental principle of our government since we got into office that we would have a competitive tax structure for job creators, for employers in this country.”

 

And now take a look at this quote. Harper says he's interested in governing, but note how he forecasts the next session of Parliament. Either he sees no signs of potential compromise in the House, or he just hates his job in the Commons. 

“Another game, another election, another round of parliamentary antics I don’t think are in anybody’s interest.”

 

Overall, I think this interview does a pretty good job of laying out how Harper will be campaigning in the next election -- promises to end public subsidies to parties, the threat of the scary coalition, etc.  And it's just my hunch, but this sounds like a Prime Minister who wants that election sooner rather than later.