The Cause

I'll do or say anything if I believe in it, but I have to believe in the cause."

Political candidates, if they have smart people on their team, will be encouraged early on to clearly answer one question: "why are you running?"  There are two public answers to this question - one, because you stand against something; this was the approach that got Rob Ford elected.  Two, less populist and often harder to position is standing for something.  If you're the incumbent, that can be the status quo/your record.  If you aren't, however, it has to be something innovative.

The reason it's really hard to sell something new is because people may not get it.  You can look for precedent elsewhere, but even then it comes down to what will actually resonate with the voters (or at least, your targeted coalition thereof).

Which is why politics is rarely about ideas, it's about brand - the strength of your candidate's and the weakness of your opponent's.  This is why politics bleeds idealism and the survivors, the ones who last long enough to move through the backroom ranks tend to be cynical, manipulative and unafraid to go for the jugular of whoever they feel stands in their way.

You're right, this is exactly what the Republicans do, and it's about time we learned from them.  They're more disciplined than we are.  I've been in this business for twenty five years and I have seen way too many Democrats bite the dust because they wouldn't get down in the mud with the fucking elephants.

There are a lot of people in politics who only pay lip service to public answers to "why are you running?"  For these people, it's the win that matters.  Politics is competition, like a rugby match.  You want to be known as a winner, because being a winner gets you more access, more finery, a more fearsome reputation, clout whatever.  When it's winning you believe in, you will convince yourself you believe in anything that will get you ahead.  It's a small step from there to saying or doing whatever it takes for that win, no matter the cause.

Not everyone starts off this cynical; many actually do start with something they believe in.  A surprising many carry those beliefs all the way through their careers.  It's rare, if not impossible, to find anyone who has willingly compromised a core belief because they say political advantage in doing so.  After all, you can't effect change if you don't win and you can't win unless you're willing to bend the rules a bit - after all, everyone does.  Right?

A common example of this here in Canada is paying for party memberships.  You'd be surprised how many candidates' teams do this.  You'd be saddened by how many see nothing wrong with the practise, then turn around and disparage Doug Ford for handing out cash to constituents.  It's not the principle, you see, it's how blatantly he breaks it that offends them.

Here's the rub, the uncomfortable truth that is anathema to politics.  If the cause is truly the thing you believe in, then winning isn't everything.  You don't run unless you plan to win, of course, but the cause has to come first and stay first, always.  Otherwise, you get people who will do things like commit to running for a seat whether they win leadership or not, then back away afterwards.  You'll get people making challenging, structural promises like Senate Reform or real transparency and then forget those promises when they win.

That's what leads to public cynicism in politics; it's also why so many people fail to make a lasting mark on the political landscape.

On every campaign I've played a significant role in, we changed things whether we won or not.  I can think of one where my candidate didn't win, but the one who did used some of our lines in their victory speech.  In at least a small way, we made our cause their cause.  It often sucks to see your work and ideas brought to fruition by someone else, but always remember that without you, that idea wouldn't be there in the first place.  

Some of the most politically influential people aren't politicians at all.  They have dedicated themselves, their talents and their resources to something they believe in and as such, can never lose. They only learn how to do better, making new connections, refining ideas and laying track along the way.

Political people will ask the question "why are you running" and look for an answer they can sell.  It's very rare that they stop, look in the mirror and ask themselves what they will do about that cause if they lose.  

The answer to that question is the difference between wins or losses and true accomplishment.

It's one we need to be asking more.

All Along the Firewall: Bullying Monkeys and Attack Ads

Maybe I could look into this and tell you whether the story is a metaphor or reality-based, but that would be a bit like committing sociology.  I'd be better off spending that time creating attack ads - after all, that's how things are done around here.

A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on the top.

Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water.

After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder.

After some time, no monkey dare[d] to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation.

Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The 1^st thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up.

• After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why.

A 2^nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1^st monkey participated on [sic] the beating for [sic] the 2^nd monkey. A 3^rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4^th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5^th monkey was replaced.

What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.

If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder ... I bet you the answer would be ... "I don't know — that's how things are done around here" Does it sound familiar?

Don't miss the opportunity to share this with others as they might be asking themselves why we continue to do what we are doing if there is a different way out there.

This seems like an experiment, but now I'm wondering... Was this experiment ever conducted? If not, was any similar experiment conducted that shows the same effect?

"There must be some kind of way out of here,"
"Said the joker to the thief..."

But we won't find it by walking in circles.

 

The Changing Game of Political Attacks

In other words, standard negative campaign literature, which, while distasteful to many, is entirely legal -- and, as noted above, is used by virtually every party. Interestingly, it seems that Trudeau did not opt in. According to Liberal caucus press secretary Kate Monfette, "he never used the cards referenced by the Conservatives."

That may have been a wise decision, as it would seem even the now standard negative campaign tactics employed by all parties can turn off potential voters

 

The Tories are masters of voter suppression - er, supporting the disengagement of opposition supporters.  They love their attack ads.  They believe politics is a bare-knuckle fight where whatever you can get away with goes.  As a result, they believe everyone else is playing the same game they are.  As such and with a growing burden of scandals of their own, Harper's Tories are doing the only thing they know how - digging up potential dirt on opponents and attempting to bait and switch.

 

Oops.

 

See, their way of playing the game isn't the only way of playing the game - in fact, I'd argue their approach is rather short-sighted.

 

When you aren't weighing the pros and cons of doing something you know is wrong, or of not thinking an action through, you're spending more time doing what you know to be right and making sure you've thought through the consequences. 

 

We'll see how committed the CPC are to their current approach - after all, that which adapts, survives.

Politics is Hazing and Why It's Time to Put Away the Attack Ad Horses and Bayonets

 

The research suggests that people may hold extreme policy positions because they are under an illusion of understanding — attempting to explain the nuts and bolts of how a policy works forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know as much about the policy as they initially thought.

 

One of my favourite topics, this, because it's so important to social function (or dysfunction, as the case may be).

 

Political operatives tell each other that politics is a blood sport and therefore, one must be tough and aggressive to win.  The ability to take the heat is supposed to prove fitness for governance, or some such.

 

Do we put prospective CEOs or Board Members through personal insults and public humiliation in an effort to prove their leadership value?  Would anyone even think that would be a useful exercise?

 

Do we encourage hazing in university, because the trial-by-fire approach builds team spirit and reminds participants they're part of the tribe?  No - we have categorically decided that hazing is detrimental and at its worst, incredibly harmful.

 

Do we put newlyweds through shivarees to remind them not to get too caught up in their wedded bliss, because they're still part of the tribe?  No - that would be invasive and offensive.

 

Do we encourage bullying in schools as a way to foster thick skin among students?  No, because that leads to mental illness and suicide.  Unless of course, you're Christie Blatchford.

 

There are only two human endeavours where it is considered acceptable to dehumanize and bully/haze/harass/abuse opponents - war and politics.  The desired outcome of war is to beat the other guy, not to build a cohesive society that builds strength through diversity.  Politics is the same thing - tribal warfare that uses different tactics to accomplish essentially the same goal.

In war, who's right and who's dead depends on who reacts faster.  The same holds true of politics.  Reaction is a limbic action that is pre-programmed and happens instantaneously, meaning you don't consciously think about it - you shoot first and ask questions never.  You have to be reactive, because if you're not, you're dead.  If a member of the tribe is acting up, you beat them down to maintain traditional order.

 

Which is exactly what happens with extreme policy positions.  Strength and aggressiveness is synonymous with right - the other guy can't be right, because if they are, then you're dead.  But pistols at dawn doesn't work in a dense social framework; it leads to reactive blood feuds like you see in Afghanistan.  And, as we're seeing with the very predictable revolt against Harper, you can't beat down your tribe forever; not even the threat of violence is enough to accomplish that any more.

 

The very reason why people have developed the capacity to commit sociology and think rationally in the first place is because society depends on it.  As tempting as it is to view the world through binary lenses of good and evil, society is a complex system; you can't change or remove one cog without consequences for the whole machine.

 

This is why education, communication, social-emotional learning and structure are so crucial to social functioning; our schools understand this and our private sector is beginning to wrap its head around the consequences of doing this poorly.  Politics, maddeningly, keeps heading in the opposite direction.

 

Slowly, painfully we are pulling back the curtain on our own ignorance and expanding our ability to see around the corner; politics, that aggressive hold out with its ancient institutions poorly suited to modern realities, is a laggard, holding out.

 

Social evolution works the same way biological evolution does - that which fails to adapt doesn't survive.  Which is why it's time for our political people to put away their horses and bayonets and start committing a bit more sociology.  

 

Give up the illusion, folks, and stop boxing at shadows.  The real world is dying for you to catch up.

 

Stephen Harper: L'etat n'est pas toi

"It's entirely appropriate for Canadians to be informed about those contrasting aspects of leadership they have available," he said, adding that the flyers are within the rules established for MP communications with their constituents.

 

Yes, Peter, it is appropriate for Canadians to be informed about contrasting aspects of leaders and policies - which is the role of Political Parties, not Government.  Government is supposed to be about providing services and keeping citizens informed about what, you know, government is doing.

 

The Harper Tories have clearly lost the thread - they've blurred the line between partisanship and governance to the point where they can't see the difference.

 

That's not only bad politics - it's dangerous to democracy.

Political Grit: Courage Under Attack Ads

Voters will forgive a lot of flaws in a politician, but one thing they won’t forgive is incompetence. It doesn’t matter if an inept politician is likeable, or positive — or a celebrity.

 

 

Judging by how much the political pundits prattle on about the potency of negative advertising, you'd think the commentariat all have PhDs in Industrial Psychology. 

 

Of course attack ads have an impact - they are designed to have the same emotional impact of a car crash, or a bombing for that matter.  The goal is to create the impression of a threat (like a contagion or incompetence) that people will reactively distance themselves from.  Our emotional hard-wiring is also essential in the memory creation process - for the same reason Alex feared the 5th, political ads can program audiences to respond negatively to desired stimuli.

 

For a Party that's supposed to dislike social engineering, the Conservatives seem to be overfond of brainwashing, but I digress.

 

By focusing on the negative, these pundits might be building the narrative that suits their needs, but they're missing the other half of the equation.  Yes, negative contexts draw public attention, but they do so because of an innate need for security and an instinct to group together in the face of threat. 

 

The reverse is also true - we are drawn together to address adversity and are inclined to follow those who show the strength to overcome challenges and keep moving forward.  Remember Abraham Lincoln?  He was a dismal failure at everything he did, except those things he is remembered for.  It's important for us to see our leaders fall - it's by how they learn to pick themselves back up that we judge them.  We also seek leaders who seem to know where that path forward lies, which is why fortune-telling, political prognosticating and polling are all such well-funded pursuits.

 

Negative attacks draw our attention, but they also mobilize us.  The response to the Boston Marathon attack was rapid, coordinated and inspiring - people touched by tragedy and strangers watching from distant corners all dove in with resources, advice and prayers.  Partially because there was this sense of community that formed out of the attack, the post-event consideration has been reflective; more people are interested in understanding and addressing the root causes behind the attack in the hopes of proactively cutting off the next one at the pass than they are looking for a lynching.

Herein lies Trudeau's opportunity.  The Conservatives have drawn all eyes to his perceived failings, laying them bear, so to speak, for the entire world to see.  They have collectively got us looking at Trudeau through a critical, emotional lens.  The unspoken question on the public's lips is "does Trudeau have true grit?

 

The Liberal Party should accept the gauntlet handed them and answer with an affirmative "hell yes."  Trudeau the younger has inherited some of the steel that made his father's gaze so piercing; that simmering cool should be used as much as possible.  Justin Trudeau has also demonstrated a leader's skill in saying first what everyone else will be saying next.  The wording could have been refined, but everyone - including Stephen Harper - wants to know why tragedies like the Boston Marathon, Newtown, Virgina Tech, etc.  keep happening so we can do something to prevent them.

Whack-a-mole politics simply isn't enough - it's not emotionally sustainable.  Whatever the ladder-climbers might like to tell themselves, people will take security over aggression nine times out of ten - and the tenth will only be if they're already hardwired for agitation themselves.

 

Harper's armour is decidedly showing some chinks - despite all his tough talk about real leaders being decisive, he himself has a habit of backing down.  His ideological policy focus of decentralize, disengage and sell oil is backfiring on all fronts; there's demand for centrally-coordinated healthcare strategies, Canada is being blasted for backing away from our human rights obligations and as a result of all this, it's getting harder to shill the Oil Sands.  Add to this a caucus rebellion and a progressively louder protest movement in Canada; you don't have to scratch the surface very far to see how fragile Harper's leadership truly is.

 

While Harper cloisters himself from the troubles lapping at his shores and employs his team in efforts to smack-down opponents, Trudeau is standing tall in the media storm with a twinkle in his eye.  Team Trudeau effectively used the attack ad the political experts have said is so effective as an opportunity to display what kind of leader their man would make; not a guy who hides from attacks but a man who turns an opponent's slings and arrows into gold for the people.

 

The model to follow here is Dalton McGuinty from 2003 - turning every hit into a demonstration of worth and simultaneously (with empathy) portraying the ruling guy as without wind in his sails.  Not going negative is not the same thing as not responding at all - instead, the best response is to use an opponent's force against them.

 

People will rally to keep out a threat, but when gifted with inspirational leadership, they'll also come together with aspirations of building something greater than they can achieve as individuals.

 

Personal grit and social inspiration; if that's not what liberalism is about, I don't know what is. 

 

The CPC's Horses and Bayonets

 

Not quite. Justin Trudeau was describing his father’s beliefs, not his own, as they pertained to separatists and their demands for special treatment.

 

The Conservative Party War Room had a clear objective - make Trudeau look bad.  They had, and still have, a belief that people either don't care about context or aren't clever enough to know they're being duped.

 

We are smart, they are dumb; we are providers, they are consumers.  Hitting hard was all that matters - a victory in 2015 will absolve all sins.

 

The Tories have either not learned from robocalls, vikileaks and Project FruitBasket or simply don't think the lessons matter, because they're an empire now.  If that's the case they're deluding themselves.

 

Especially now, every single comment they make is going to be scrutinized by someone; every single detail will be laid bare.  All of these gaffes will be strung together to form a narrative and if that big picture looks sketchy to Canadians, they'll respond in kind.

 

If any Party misrepresents the truth, if they lie or if they break the rules, it'll be magnified to starkly transparent proportions via social media and they'll be held to account - just like everyone else. 

 

The field of engagement has changed; you can't repurpose your intent or get bureaucrats to speak in "political truths" any more without getting caught.  The Internet sees into every dark corner - and it remembers.

 

There's only one way to succeed in this world of forced political transparency - be engaging, be creative and plan ahead.

 

To not end up with egg on their face in an embarrassing way, Team Harper has to stop trying to take down others and instead start challenging themselves to be more than the sum of their aggressive, competitive parts.  To succeed at that, they're going to have to seek ideas from beyond their own sphere, but not in a crib-the-speech kind of way. 

 

Nope - they're going to have to be pro-social to maintain the brand.  But Trudeau already owns that brand.

 

Interesting times, indeed.