So . . . we're in the home stretch of the election campaign here in the Great White North (you should take off to here, and apparently it's a beauty way to go) with decision day a week away. Just enough time for the NDP to lose their again-too-early bump in the polls and for all those voters to run back to the Liberals. Today I'm going to give you a bit of a grab bag of election topics that I have on my mind: suffrage, branding, and goals.
One of the standard plays of modern politics is hyper-simplification. Clinton advisor James Carville came up with the idea that you can only say three things and be remembered (which led to the "it's the economy, stupid" plan that won Slick Willy the White House). Bush Jr. perfected this tactic by making his campaigns(especially 2004) about only one thing (security). Obama was only about change (change to what, we're still waiting to find out).
Harper is doing a much better job of this than his primary foe in the election, Michael Ignatieff. Harper's automatic repetition of economy, economy, economy is not because he doesn't know any other words, but rather he wants to stay on message. The candidates who are, let's generously say, secondary also do this to varying degrees: Jack Layton is mainly about "helping working families" and "the environment;" Duceppe has clearly only one message, which is Quebec separation; and Elizabeth May is about the environment and yet also fiscal responsibility, if you believe her website, which I don't. It's Ignatieff who is all over the place with no clear direction for his campaign. Really, even if you were a dyed-in-the-wool-large-L-Liberal, could you say the one or two things this campaign is about, other than removing Harper? The closest I can come is something like "respect for parliamentary process," but that is hardly going to mobilize the masses. He needs to focus and simply, and do so quickly if he wants a chance at winning.
By the way, I'm not saying that simplification is good for people - it's not (as I've mentioned before). But it is an effective way to brand your party and help people make choices. Just like with branded products.
But these are goals, and one of the aspects of politics that bugs me more than anything is that it tends to only be about goals. There was a brief discussion of this in the English-language debates last week, when Harper accused Layton of only having desired end-states and no way to get there (and let's forget for the moment that Harper was no different). Goals are great; they let people know that someday things will get better. But the goal of a Prime Minister and government is to get us there, not only mark out the destination (though Layton clearly disagreed). What good is a leader who can't implement the actions? Would you rather have a coach who prepares the team, trains the players, teaches the sport and that eventually leads to wins, or one who just promises lots of victories? The former lacks glamour, but the latter is useless.
Finally, a word about the universal right to vote (well, as long as you are over 18, not in prison, not a mental patient, etc): I'm against it. Not everyone deserves to vote (and no, my dear reactionaries, it's not because of age, gender, or because you wear chartreuse leather pants). I think everyone should have to pass a very basic test before being able to vote. Like being able to name the political parties. And to know something about the leaders, issues, and process. Over-using the sports team analogy, we wouldn't let someone who doesn't know the rules of the game have a say in who coaches the team, so why does everyone get to vote if they are ignorant? If a citizen really wanted to vote, there would be ample opportunity to learn the test. Fail the test, vote doesn't count.
Maybe I'll make that the central point of my campaign - the ignorance party. Though given voter turnout in this country, would I lose to the apathy party? I don't know and I don't care.
No comments:
Post a Comment