Obama’s lesson lost on Ottawa
Posted by Joseph Thornley on December 7th, 2008, 2 Comments
By Dan Tisch, President, Argyle Communications
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, we are told, is a clever strategist and a man of formidable intelligence. His supporters say he has changed and grown since taking office.
And yet, despite buying himself time by proroguing Parliament, his hold on power remains tenuous. Canada seems doomed to political instability at a time when we can least afford it.
The opposition parties seeking to topple the government are partially to blame; surely an economic crisis is the worst time to play political games.
However, there would have been no opportunity for their opportunism had the Prime Minister not misread the public mood on the biggest questions of our time.
When climate change became an existential concern for all of humanity, Canada took baby steps. When Canadians expected aggressive economic stimulus, the government hesitated.
Most devastating of all is the hardening of the Prime Minister’s image as a fierce partisan at a time when people want the precise opposite. In October, this hyper-partisanship cost him a majority government. If he continues along this path, it may cost him his job.
Much has been written about Barack Obama’s success in mobilizing millions of new voters and raising astonishing sums en route to a comfortable victory. He did so by articulating not a liberal (let alone leftist) solution to America’s ailments, but rather a vision in tune with the times: post-ideological and post-partisan.
CNN’s coverage of the presidential debates featured real-time meters of viewer opinion: at most flashes of partisanship, the candidates’ approval ratings went down. When they appealed to higher purposes or national unity, their ratings went up.
In his best moments, John McCain understood this. But with a campaign led by political generals still fighting the last war, the character assassins and ideological sharpshooters inadvertently fired on themselves. Sadly, Harper’s strategists seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Canadians are in a mood similar to our American neighbours: In an atmosphere of petty partisanship, we stayed away from the polls in record numbers and elected a minority Parliament that reflected both our apathy and our ambivalence.
We have seen politicians put partisanship aside before, usually at times of crisis. Winston Churchill’s multi-partisan war cabinet is perhaps the most famous example of the 20th century.
Today, however, the public’s desire to move beyond partisanship and ideology seems deeper than ever. Attachment to political parties is at a historic low, and engagement in social networks and movements is at a historic high.
The operating principles of social media – including authenticity, intimacy and agility – are inconsistent with blind partisanship, rigid ideology and Ottawa’s obsessive control of its ministers, mandarins, messages and media.
Our political culture punishes the few independent thinkers in our parties, far more so than in the U.S. or the U.K. The parties themselves still wield great power, but are largely irrelevant as venues for debate. What hope is there for ordinary partisans when even members of the cabinet have little influence in the government?
In this bleak environment, there remains hope that a new leader or political movement will arise or adapt to the post-partisan age. It is unlikely and perhaps unreasonable to expect an Obama-like figure to emerge in Canada anytime soon.
There is, however, a golden opportunity for Canada’s political classes to learn a lesson from his ascent – one that is both fundamental and yet paradoxical: moving beyond partisanship may be the very best boost of your partisan cause.
Daniel Tisch, APR
President | Argyle Communications
Originally published in the Toronto Star, December 6, 2008
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
William Johnson
December 8th, 2008 » 20:34Not trying to attempt to undermine the essence of your piece (which I agree with) – that the most necessary and sensible avenue for political and economic stability is to move beyond partisanship and political games – but I feel that there are some points in your article that are surely up for debate.
Firstly, you accuse Prime Minister Harper of “[misreading] the public mood on the biggest questions of our time.” You then site climate change and the economy as policy areas in which the Conservatives dithered.
Perhaps in the opinion of some Canadians the Conservatives track-record on the environment is not up to snuff, however, I do not believe (even with the apparent surge in the support for the Green Party last election) that the environment was necessarily a top priority for Canadians. In fact, Stephane Dion and the Liberals terrible showing can be attributed to a population rejecting, not just the unappealing Liberal Leader, Dion, but a terribly unpopular carbon tax. (Yes, the Green Party’s support rose significantly in the last federal election, and they also campaigned on a carbon tax with stricter provisions than the Liberals’, but they also failed to elect one Member of Parliament; perhaps that is testament to the idea that although their seems to be an apparent surge in support for environmental sustainability, the Green Party still remains a protest party). Wouldn’t you agree that the environment took a far back-seat to the issue of the economy and leadership?
Second, you say “When Canadians expected aggressive economic stimulus, the government hesitated.” What economic stimulus did we expect, again? I recall the Conservatives winning another mandate (albeit a minority) campaigning on balancing the books; in fact, all parties campaigned on ‘costed and balanced budget sheets,’ as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation puts it. Any economic stimulus – such as the $30 billion one proposed by the recently formed coalition (that has not even articulated where this money is going to come from) – would surely put the government books into the red; again, the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives all campaigned promising to balance the books.
Lastly, you reference CNN’s coverage of the presidential debates and you note the fluctuating approval ratings that rose during verbal incidences of non-partisanship. Yes, Americans overwhelmingly signalled their distaste for any old partisan rhetoric and nonsense, but I’m not sure Canadians were even subjected to that during the past election. The decline in voter-turnout could have been attributed to voter-fatigue or Liberals unwilling to vote for their pre-embattled, but still lame-duck leader. (Note: The Liberals vote-share has declined in three successive elections). Our election focussed on which party, or party leader would be the steady hand on the economy during these precarious times. Parties had no incentive to be partisan or even focus on specific policy initiatives because voters were merely looking for assurance from their leaders that ‘everything was going to be alright.’ (Again, Stephane Dion’s spearheading of his Carbon Shift, and the public’s unequivocal rejection of it is evidence of the non-appealing nature of the untested new policy that Canadians weren’t necessarily looking for).
As I mentioned at the beginning, I agree that Canada’s politicians could perhaps take a lesson from President-elect, Barack Obama, but I don’t agree that they haven’t already shown that they are willing to try this new working together thing…consensus.
Thanks, just my thoughts!
Dan Tisch
December 9th, 2008 » 14:50William, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m delighted to offer a few points in response.
First, I agree that the environment has been eclipsed by the economy as the most important issue for Canadians, but my comments about the government misreading the public mood were focused on the net effect of Mr. Harper’s entire first term. In 2006, the environment was a huge issue for Canadians, on which the government was caught flat-footed with virtually no meaningful policy. They released a widely panned strategy under their first environment minister, and never really regained the upper hand on the file. But the biggest misreading of the public mood, I still argue, flow from their hyper-partisanship and demonization of their opponents. While this admittedly helped poison the public against Mr. Dion, the strategy’s unintended consequence was to enhance public disengagement and cynicism, and to cement the image of Mr. Harper as a political brawler rather than a statesman.
On the economic stimulus, it’s true that no party deviated from the orthodoxy of balanced budgets during the campaign. However, things changed quickly: remember the campaign’s final week, when the PM was criticized for a lack of empathy for those facing economic struggles? And then in the weeks after the election, economists massively swung in a Keynesian direction.
I am not saying this is good or bad policy per se (just bad public relations!). There is a sound intellectual rationale for a “wait until January to get it right” economic strategy; however, when you set people up to expect an economic announcement and instead seem preoccupied with hurting your opponents’ party finances, it’s a recipe for trouble.
Are Canadians in a post-partisan mood? I would love to see more research on the question, but my hypothesis is that our massive disengagement from politics and the across-the-board decline in the approval ratings for Mssrs Harper, Dion and Layton last week suggest we are moving in the same psychological direction as our American neighbours on this subject.
Thanks again for your post! It’s a debate worth having.
Cheers!
Dan