Why the Bloc Should Love Lynton Crosby

"A campaign is simply finding out who will decide the outcome, where are they, what matters to them and how do you reach them and how do you monitor the impact of what you're doing when you're communicating with them," he says.  "Who is the target for you?  Who matters?"

There's no magic in what Crosby does - it's just math.  What makes him stand out is his simple, calculated way of using wedge-politics on the "what matters to them" piece.  With political manipulators like Crosby, what matters is as much about what you fear as what you believe in.

Hence, the niqab thing.

It's blown up of late to become the latest defining issue in a campaign that's gone through several (Duffy, the Syrian Refugee crisis, etc).  It's also one of the least significant issues in Canadian politics right now - things like, I dunno, youth employment, the silver surge, mental health, our economy, etc. are kinda more crucial to the big picture.

Winning elections isn't about solving problems, though - it's about motivating people to vote for you and not vote for the other guy, with a sub-set of divide-and-conquer of the other parties and community groups.

People like Lynton Crosby aren't paid to worry about the big picture - their job is to get their people across the finish line with the most seats, period.

So, while the niqab issue is a tempest in a teapot impacting a fraction of a fraction of the population, the Harper Conservatives have managed to spin it into a fundamental test of Canadian values and whatnot.  It's demonstrably working for them.

The basic frame is this - covering one's face during a swearing-in ceremony is the moral equivalent of wrapping baby Jesus in the Canadian flag along with your passport, lighting everything on fire, putting the flaming bundle into a car with a cup of pee and driving that car into the War Memorial.

Shocking, ghastly stuff that stands against everything Canada stands for.

What people are really taking away from it, of course, is simpler and more emotional - them people that think differently and dress differently have something to hide, a secret agenda, and that's dangerous.  We need to push back.

It's firewall mentality; it's pure laine mentality.  It implies there is a set old stock Canada that people are yearning to desecrate; the only ones who can stop this tide and keep troubles from lapping at our shores are, you guessed it, Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney and the CPC.

There's clearly an appetite for this kind of message.  If the Tories can keep it up, they will effectively wash away the taint of the Senate Scandal and broader criticism of Harper's increasingly authoritarian rule.

Yay for Crosby; job well done, pay his fee and pour the Scotch.  His reputation as a campaign wizard remains intact.

The spin-off repercussions of this play aren't his problem; he collects his cheque and goes home.

Meanwhile, the pushing of ethnic/cultural issues to the fore of the election for wedge-political gain is pouring gas on already-existing xenophobic sentiment in this country.  CSIS itself has clearly stated that ISIS presents less of a threat to Canada than White Supremacists, yet pushing this button helps them to push their agenda as well.

Meanwhile, Quebec has a history of seeing itself as a culture and value-set under threat; language laws, religious garb bans, etc. have defined its relationship with Canadians as much as the separatist movement has.

By pushing the niqab issue into the limelight, Crosby and co. have reinforced the emotional narrative of values and community under threat by culture-usurping outsiders that clearly has some appeal inside Quebec.

That probably has something to do with the Bloc's bump in popularity, as they frame themselves as protectors of traditional Quebec in much the same way Harper presents himself as champion of Old Stock Canada.

If the Bloc sees this is working, they may very well double-down on Crosby's position to stir up more support for themselves.  For their part, Crosby and Team Harper should be delighted by this - a stronger Bloc in Quebec bleeds support potential from the Liberals and/or NDP, strengthening their lead.

It's a numbers game, remember.

What does a resurgent Bloc bolstered on a xenophobic message of foreign values and customs threatening traditional culture mean for Canada - especially with a wave of Syrian refugees, many who might end up in Montreal, on the way?

Who else might seize upon this carefully-constructed wedge-issue to push their own agendas which may not align with what most see as traditional Canadian-ness?

Again, none of this is Crosby's problem; he's just a hired gun.

It's the rest of us that will have to deal with the consequences of these short-sighted moves.

The Heart of Nigel Wright

In response, Mr. Wright cited a book of the New Testament, Matthew, and in particular, Matthew 6, verse 3.

“This is sort of Matthew 6: You should do those things quietly and not let your right hand know what your left is doing,” he told the Ottawa court.

There are different translations of most Bible verses but a generally accepted version of the verse in question discusses how people should not boast of alms to the poor: “When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

By all accounts, Nigel Wright is a stand-up, ethical, Christian values kind of guy.   You could see that when he went to work, when he went to church, when he paid his taxes.  

There was no way, the in-the-know chattering classes said, that a man like that would do something unethical.  

Yet as evidence emerges at the Duffy trial, even Wright has admitted his actions were not particularly well thought out.  

Which is why his quoting of scripture fascinates me. 

To many commentators on the trial, the impression is that Wright is trying to place himself on moral high ground by quoting the Bible, or worse, using scripture to further his spin.

All that may be part and parcel of his presentation, but again - from what we've heard, Wright's the kinda guy who believes scripture and probably tries to live his life by it's code of conduct.  

From a strictly messaging stand-point, Wright is smart enough to know that a US-style reliance on Bible quotes won't help his reputation among the majority up here. If the purpose of quoting ‎Matthew et al was to create a positive, moral persona for himself in the eyes of the public, it was poorly conceived. 

What if his Bible-quoting ‎wasn't for our benefit? What if he was saying it outloud more for reasons of internal validation?

If Wright sees himself as a religious, ethical man, you see, there would be something wrong with him acting against the public interest in order to protect his political boss and party.   That would be contrary to his ethics, and none of us like to think we're hypocrites. 

Yet we are, aren't we? We demand from others what we're not willing to do ourselves and validate in ourselves what we giddily criticize in those around us. It's especially true in politics, and egregiously so in campaigns. 

Most of the time we can live as hypocrites in unchallenged manner; instead of accepting fault, we can simply lash out at others. (oh yeah? Well YOU are doing THIS)! Sometimes, however, the personas of how we view ourselves and how we actually are‎ come into unavoidable collision. 

The term for this is cognitive dissonance. 

Human beings have a hard time balancing perception of self with reality of self - when these things some into conflict, we are prone to justify these disparities rather than correct them.  

A floor-crosser, for instance, isn't abandoning their principles for some kind of personal advantage; it's more like their party has left them and the opposing one has started to align with their world view.  

They didn't change, you see, nor were they being hypocritical.  

In Wright's case, the message he seems to be telling himself (and us) is that his conduct was aligned with the Biblical values he lives by; it wasn't egregiously partisan and immoral.  

Of course, that argument doesn't hold up much once you scratch the surface. As we've already read countless times, Duffy was a wealthy man, in no need of alms.  

And if Wright is so committed to giving alms to the poor, why would he be writing a cheque for $90K to someone who doesn't need it instead of one who does?

 Matthew 19:21

…20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Yet here's Wright, easily dropping more than many Canadian households bring in all year on one cheque for a partisan crony.   Can he be that wealthy and narrow-minded with his wealth and ‎still feel that Jesus would approve?

Is Wright wilfully deceiving himself and us, using scripture as validation? How ethical is that?

Nigel Wright, by all accounts, is an ethical man - except here he is, by even his own account, leaning in an unethical direction.  

Let's not hastily cast stones in Wright's direction.  There's more to this story than personal hypocrisy.

Wright is no doubt familiar with the concept of original sin - the first people were sinful and now, sin is coded into humanity's DNA.  

From a metaphorical perspective, one could say the core concept is that, as Rob Ford might argue, we're only human - we're not super heroes, not saints, and therefore prone to reactive, short-sighted and influenced decisions.  

Political attack ads are bred from this notion.

If we accept this - that we are not entirely rational, bur rather largely limbic-driven creatures that are responsive to our environments, then consider: Wright could have been a saint, but working under the conditions that the House of Commons create, he slid from generalized ethics to a more nuanced, more political variation thereof.

That, to me, is the real problem - that scandals have become routine in politics and even those who in other conditions might behave to the highest standards can still find themselves mired in the muck.

A culture that cultivates a war-room mentality, selfish pursuit, secrecy, absolutist power and the rest of it is not one that's conducive to the highest standards of democracy.

That's the heart of the matter; the culture of our politics is a mess and needs to change.

Until it does, the horrors will only increase.

Arrogance and the ISIS Parable

 

 

On its social media pages, the Islamic State has warned militants not to share location data or other information that could be useful to the group’s opponents, but Weyers said many of the militants do not appear to have picked up on the message.

 

 

ISIS is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  It's worth noting that, for a collective apparently pursuing an Armageddon agenda, they're pretty focused on governance and infrastructure.

 

Yet what are the marketing strategies they're using for recruitment?  Are they bringing in and, once they've got 'em, training their militants for a sustained conflict and perpetual suppression of a local populace?

 

I'd say the short answer is no.  ISIS recruits aren't prepared for consequences, nor is ISIS itself.  They feel they can carve out a corner of the world, scare off outsiders and set up their own feudal enterprise.

 

They'd do well to study why feudalism fell in the first place.

 

ISIS is sloppy.  It's people are sloppy and can't but be sloppy because of their starting premise.

 

Nobody can bring about the end of the world.  But they can sure end themselves if they don't think ahead.

 

And the only way to think ahead is to think empathetically, which is exactly what ISIS-ians are trained and encouraged not to do.

 

There's a lesson in this.

What the TTC should learn from Ferguson

 * Does not reflect TTC Fare inspectors.

 

He added that none of their inspectors have yet used their batons, which he said are “solely for the purpose of protecting themselves should situations escalate.”

 

 

Should these situations escalate.  Hopefully they won't and all, but hey - it never hurts to be on the safe side.  Carrying a baton is like carrying an umbrella, right?

 

Wrong.  So wrong.  To plan for violent eventualities - to tell your recruits that hey, is a fight breaks out and if you get attacked, you've got this baton handy - is to frame the fare inspector's thought process in that they're looking for that situation to materialize. 

 

When you go looking for trouble, etc.

Just look at Ferguson.

 

The hearing also revealed bipartisan skepticism about why local police agencies need automatic weapons, sniper rifles and armoured personnel carriers among other equipment.

 

Why, indeed?  Why do local police need to be armed with the equipment used by soldiers in fields of combat? 

 

Of course they don't.  In fact, if public service is equitable and justice is blind, the role of the town policeman should be an easy, even friendly one.

To put such weapons in the hands of police, or transit "fare inspectors" is to beg for their usage.  It's the ultimate marshmallow test - tempting a child with something fun or tasty, telling them not to use it and then walking away.

 

And there's more.

 

The TTC's concern is not enough fares are getting collected.  They need more money and the pressure is to find it internally, but it's hard to keep hiking fares when service keeps faltering.  So how about paying money for fare inspectors to help the cause?

How much of this will be about TTC riders vs existing TTC fare collectors?  Anyone who's ridden the TTC knows that collectors aren't always 100% tuned in to the people passing through their turnstyles.  Sometimes, there's no person there at all.  In some cases, good customer service gets in the way of watching every set of the tens of thousands of hands that pass over deposit boxes, especially over open gates.

 

It's not too hard to picture armed fare inspectors getting it into their head that they are superior to fare collectors and waving their baton around (figuratively speaking, of course) over fare-related matters, even customer service. 

 

All this at an agency that is struggling with service disruptions, delays, etc. 

 

The citizens aren't the problem.  The employees aren't the problem.  People are people - they will react to their environment, whatever it may be.  A poorly designed environment results in poor results.

 

Batons are a terrible addition to an already poorly designed environment.

 

I would suggest Brad Ross stop his Michael Hayden act and start recognizing that if people have concerns, it's probably there's a reason for it.

 

Instead of adding weapons to a volatilte mix, how about better management practices, better training, better service?  You could even use open data and digital tools to empower TTC riders to be part of the structural solution.  Heck, you could use civic fundraising to help address specific transit issues.

 

Let's sort this out before the TTC's baton business gets out of hand, and ends up in the media.

Getting to Yes: Sales, Sex and Parliament Hill

 

 

Objections are inevitable but should never be seen as a door slamming closed in your face.

 

There's no small irony that we're hearing about the awkward backroom sexual interactions of Parliamentarians at the same time they're making decisions about sex work.

One other piece to add to the mix, though - ABC.  That is, Always Be Closing - the mantra of the salesperson.  This concept of always being on the hustle is the narrative spine of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which is the system we have right now.  You have to push to get what you want.  No doesn't mean no, no is simply an invitation to probe further and get to yes.

 

Ever heard of Getting to Yes: How To Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In?  Ever hear of senior executive suggesting female employees need to be coming all the way to them and demanding promotions instead of expecting their work to be recognized on its own merits?

 

How about "kids these days, they're lazy, they aren't trying hard enough to get jobs, they want everything handed to them." ?

 

As the economy tightens and as the people at the top consciously or unconsciously start to reap the benefits of being kings and queen's of the hill, there's an increasing amount of pressure on everyone else to do the heavy lifting.  Which inevitably means sales.

 

Michael Hlinka is one of those that teaches young students to hustle, to set real-world expectations and fully admits that he abuses the perks of his position because he can.  The implication of what he says is "my position shouldn't exist as it does" but the lesson taught is "I get to there, my troubles are over." 

 

Don't take no for an answer.  Hustle.  Be aggressive in your sales.  It's all about completing the transaction - Always Be Closing.

 

After an interlude in the bathroom to collect her wits, she re-entered the bedroom with the intent of finishing her drink and leaving. But Pacetti pulled her onto the bed. They had sexual intercourse. She then left.

 

Good for Pacetti, right?  He kept at it; intro at the bar, convinced her to go back to his place, drinks, clarified intent, closed the deal.  Transaction made.

 

Maybe the lead was weak, but he got it done.  High fives in the locker room, or the boardroom for stuff like that.

 

That's not exactly how we want to look at sex, though, is it?  If anything, Bill C-36 suggests we think sex should be an act between an engaged couple and that sex-as-exchange is morally wrong.

 

Of course, sex and sales are completely different things, right?  We fully expect rational-actor adults to realize there's a difference between "it's just business" when hard-selling people for cash or votes but something sociological when it comes to reproduction.

 

But where are the examples of these rational actors?  If anything, the evidence suggests that the aggressively successful people are more, not less likely to act the same way in their professional lives as they do in their personal lives.  Of even worse, having recognized a veneer of civility helps make it easier for people to give them what they want.

 

Ghomeshi shocked a nation (more because we enjoy the notion of being shocked than any actual surprise that a celebrity would act inappropriately).  #beenrapedneverreported started uncomfortable conversations about male sexual aggression towards women while touching on the dearth of EQ there is at all levels of society (but perhaps excessively so at the top of competitive fields like politics).

 

Now, there's this. 

 

Shelia Copps kneed her attacker in the groin; a pretty clear indication that advances weren't appreciated.  I would suggest that Ms. Copps has more balls than many of the men on Parliament Hill and it's not a reasonable expectation for every woman to be as aggressively self-defensive as that.

 

Pacetti pushed for what he wanted and created favourable conditions (his place, his booze) to get it.  Is that much different than looking for a majority government to push through omnibus bills with?  Is it any different from a youth seeking work setting their sights on a job they want and doing whatever they can to land it?

 

Which could very well be what Alexandara Constantinidis did.  Or Michael Sona did, and proudly so.  Or Sebastien Togneri did, because that was the example he had to emulate.

 

Frankly, anyone who's scored successive wins in politics has played this game.  Adjusting policies to win votes, attacking opponents to reduce their votes or a whole host of less polite tactics are all part of getting to yes at the ballot box.

 

We have tried to silo our actions for messaging purposes, because that's how messaging works.  We have ignored what troubles us and focused on low-hanging fruit, because that's how quick wins get amassed.  Yet as a consequence to all this, we have waded into a tangled, messy reality that we're trying to mask with a veneer of civility that is rapidly flaking off.

 

There are no individuals who bear the blame; there are no innocents.  We will never get out of this sticky mess of cultural dissonance without asking some hard questions of ourselves, our environments and our expectations of life, of work, and of society.

 

We have to grow past a functional fixedness on short-term wins and start discussing actual solutions.  This can't happen if we focus on transactions - we need to engage in relationships.  That means moving beyond the WE want THIS from THEM framing into something more #howmightwe move forward together?

 

If ever there was a time to commit sociology, it's now.  Right now.

 

 

Arc of Community

If you knew the Apocalypse were to land in 30 years, what would you do differently today?

 

This was an interesting question teased by Why Should Care?'s speaker tonight, Professor Franklyn Griffiths.  He was there to talk about Canada's future as an Arctic Nation, but a point raised was more existential.  It's his view that, looking at the big picture of global climate change, we could be looking at an Apocalyptic end to our world as we know it sometime in the 2030s.

Which is not to suggest fire and brimstone, the Kraken unleashed; it's more to the point of the way that we live right now will cease to be feasible.  That's access to food, sustainability of infrastructure, etc.  Think less Noah and think more The Road.  Our world - our civilization - will be consumed over time because we will no longer have the resources, skill, time or knowledge to maintain it.

 

 There will be those out there who tell us this is nonsense, the skittish dreams of self-hating lefties and eco-terrorists clamouring to punish humanity for their own weakness.  Such folk can point to history, all the times we've heard apocalyptic predictions that failed.

Of course, history has plenty of examples of failed civilizations and populations who've fallen into dark times - everything from the collapse of the Roman Empire to Easter Island fit in this category.  No fall happens over night, but its onset can come quickly.

 

Still, if Prof Griffiths is right, we still have 15-20 years between now and then.  Jonathan Nolan's got plenty of time to make his Foundation mini-series.  We'll all have to pay bills, look to our kids' financial security, etc. in the interim.  I mean, it's not like you can put your head in the sand and wait for 15 years to pass, can you?

 

Which brings up a more interesting question.  Let's say that it's a real thing, that the engine of civilization as we know it could sputter to an end in 15 years.  No more public transit, public hydro, no public anything - no highways for the transport of food, no TV, internet, schools, libraries, maintained sewers, on and on.

 

If you knew with absolute certainty that this was the case - what would you differently now?

 

I know what my answer is.

Id vs Super Ego: The Conscious Tonic

 

Asking questions like, 'What about it really upsets you?  Why are you so angry?

 

In asking these types of questions, you are being your teen's mindful brain.  You are helping him to figure out that it is helpful to take a step back and ask these types of questions when he is feeling really angry or upset.

 

Populism is like the teenage brain; emotion runs high and drowns out logic.  It's Id vs. Super Ego.

 

There are all kinds of examples of populism out there right now, from the crass to the dangerous.  The former, unchecked, invariably leads to the latter, which is why we have a conscience in the first place - it's how we plan ahead.

 

Therein lies the big secret that's being missed.  When you focus on messaging and attacks both verbal and non-verbal, you're trying to control an opponent or audience.  You want to limit their frame and stoke emotional responses - which is likely what they're trying to do, too.  It's political escalation.

 

How we redress this isn't through force or functional fixedness, but through the application of behavioural economics.  You can't teach the old maestro a new tune, but you can twig them with a familiar refrain. 

 

Our is not to do or die - ours is to question why.

 

Why matters.
 

It Gets Darker Before the Dawn

 

"It shows the seriousness of what is happening around the world, and how important it is for officers to be equipped with the best information, with a focus on their safety," he said.

 

The best information. 

 

What would that be, exactly?  It doesn't refer to an understanding of behavioural economics and a thorough analysis of the causal conditions that lead to criminal behavior - that's too much like committing sociology.

It probably has nothing to do with geopolitics, especially the local equity imbalances that ISIS recruiters, like any gang, tap into to gain converts.

 

No, one imagine that the information provided will be of more the carding variety - suspicion by association.

 

Then there's the whole "focus on their safety" piece, which is most troubling.  "To serve and protect" puts the people's interest first, not the safety of officers.  It's inherently a risky job, but by getting in early, engaging with a community and working on initiatives like mentorship programs, active police help reduce crime in the first place.

 

A focus on safety tends to involve less interaction and when it comes, it comes with greater armament so as to reduce officer risk. 

 

Ferguson is a great example of how this plays out in practice; well-armed police with their usual suspects list caused and escalated a tragic situation one expect to hear about from the streets of Syria, not suburban USA.

 

Or think the G20 - police had information about black block plans to escalate street violence and fed right into that beast, creating a public relations nightmare and increasing tensions among citizens and the police, already high and already growing higher.

 

"I don't talk to cops," a youth told me on the streetcar the other day.  This after I interceded when hearing her say "I hate all cops," dehumanizing them in the same manner as which carding dehumanizes certain ethnic groups.  Tell us more about the youth who are choosing to join with ISIL, government: are they ethnic minorities who feel marginalized in their Canadian context, singled out by police, ignored by employers, looked at with suspicion on the subway?

 

There are a lot of good officers out there.  I hear from them, sometimes, about the struggle they have within the current police culture that focuses on strength, wins, and threats more than it does public service.  I hear the exact same thing from youth entering that culture, which is alarming.

 

In recent days, more than 100,000 Syrian refugees have fled to Turkey in a bid to escape ISIS.

Why?  Because the folk of ISIS are brutal alphas with a superiority complex.  The God they worship is not the one of Islam; if anything, they have fallen for the false god prophesied by Islamic eschatology.

 

The thuggish converts to ISIS rape, pillage, torture, abuse power and focus on destroying others in defense of "their cause" which is a create a state in which they have absolute unquestioned authority and the respect of the international community because they're such bad asses.

 

Suspicion, fear, threat of arms, abuse - those aren't the tools of enlightenment.  They are, however, increasingly the hammer of choice for security.

 

As they say, it's darkest before the dawn - but the dawn is a long way off.  It's going to get a lot, lot darker - which why now, more than ever, we need to keep the candle of enlightenment burning.