Stephen Harper's Integrity: A Reflection

 

Harper came to power promising to do things differently than the Liberals of the Ad Sponsorship era. The base expected a new integrity reflecting the best conservative values — integrity, frugality and respect for Canadians. Instead, Canadians have been fed a steady dose of behaviour out of the prime minister’s own office that redefines unethical — and, in some cases, verges on the criminal.

 

The Harper machine has been hell-bent on two interconnected things:

 

1) Stay in power

2) Destroy the Liberals

 

Destroying the Liberals was as much about near-autocratic control as anything else.  When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when you're only objective is wins, everything starts to look like a race.

 

Governance isn't a race.  It's not about last man standing, the victor getting the spoils and the ends justifying the means.  It's about leadership, organization, sustainability.

 

Harper will have his place in history as lasting long, but leaving very little in his wake.  It'll be up to others to rebuild the brand he has painted into a corner through his reliance on black-and-white imagery.

 

When it becomes about winning, not achieving, you've lost.

 

It's not just Harper.  We're seeing a slow movement away from organizations that have put individual or organizational gain before commitment to community - it's as true of voters as it is of new Ello users.  Such is the nature of the market that where there's demand, supply emerges.

 

There is much still in flux and those used to the economic model of the last century rest confident that all this "put the people and planet before profit and power" stuff is a passing fad that can't gain traction, because you need profit and power for that.

 

Do you need integrity if you've got money and power?  Can't you just fake it if that's the fluff the market thinks they want?

 

That's been Stephen Harper's play.  How's that worked out for him?

 

Maybe a subsequent leader can reset his party; maybe Harper himself will land a cushy job on some boards and live prosperously to the end of his days.  Possible, it'll never occur to him that he let slip each and every value he once convinced himself mattered in his question for position and longevity.

 

But maybe not.  Regardless, what Harper leaves behind - his legacy - his written not by his intent, but by his actions.

 

Integrity matters.  Ultimately, it's all that gets left behind.

Think Before You Speak: ONW and the #onpoli NDP

The article published by Ontario News Watch is grossly inaccurate speculation.  It is a disservice to readers and is a poor reflection on Ontario News Watch.  It pretends knowledge it does not have.

Wow.  Just wow.

The article in question is a piece by Susanna Kelley that suggests the Ontario NDP have come to the conclusion it is no longer in their strategic partisan interests to prop up the governing Liberal Party.  It mentions specific rationale and references an email sent by the NDP to their local riding associations.  

It's pretty specific stuff that isn't too hard to fact-check.  Fact-checking, of course, is one of those things that journalists do.  Their integrity and relationship with their readers kinda depends on them being right.

So when Gilles Bisson suggests that the substance of Susanna's article is a complete fabrication, it's kind of a big deal.  

He is questioning her integrity and reliability - essentially, telling her audience that she has no competence to do the job she is paid to do.

And has done, for years.  Successfully.  Since before the NDP team bought their first copy of The War Room.

Full disclosure - I know Sue and consider her a friend.  I, like many in and around Ontario politics respect her a great deal.  She's been in this business for a lot longer than the NDP's current communication staff and has earned her reputation as an honest, dedicated journalist.

I have no doubt that the truth will out on this; emails will surface, other journalists will corroborate Sue's story and in a worst-case scenario for the NDP, someone in their camp is going to have to backtrack on Bisson's comments.

That's all a given.  What's more interesting to me is why on earth the NDP would have issued such a blistering response so quickly without having talked to Susanna herself first.

This hints at a trend in politics that communications folk should be paying attention to.

Whether it's Rob Ford lying about his crack use or any number of denials at the federal and provincial levels about who ordered who to do what, the truth keeps coming out.  

Invariably, someone in authority ends up with egg on their face and the public's disenfranchisement with politics as a whole grows.

Yet it doesn't matter how many other people get rolled over by their own spin - the communications whizzes in the backrooms of politics keep figuring they're too smart to get caught or everyone else is to dumb to catch them in the act.

I think this in no small part has to do with the fact that politics as a whole has morphed into an industry that's almost strictly about sales (instead of debate).  Whether it's talking points in Legislatures, fundraising letters to Party members or attack ads online, political messaging goes one way only, from the inside out.

The trend has increasingly been to hit fast, hit hard, never waver in your message and never give your opponent time to breathe.

We know what the problem with this model is; it's been widely recognized as one of the structural failings hobbling our society and economy, resulting in poorly-conceived policy decisions.

When your only tool is a hammer, you tend to view every problem as a nail.  War Room politics has essentially turned every critic, even friendly ones, into enemies to be hammered.  

It may be effective for countering foes in the short-term, but in the long-term the result is lost relationships, lost respect and as such, less opportunity to gain the meaningful insight that only comes through a healthy debate of the issues.

So here's a bit of age-old wisdom for partisan communicators - think before you speak.  Listen and consider before you react.  

And for God's sake, don't be afraid to talk with (not just at) the person challenging you.  They may have a point you haven't considered, and you might have one they overlooked.  Either way, you'll learn valuable lessons that could help you avoid such conflicts in the future.  You don't get that when you operate strictly in a vacuum chamber.

Oh - and you might just save yourself some embarrassment down the road.  After all, if you find yourself in the position of having to deny something that's true, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Don't You Know That Rules Are Not Enough?

 

But we would welcome the arrival in this town of the rare politician or bureaucrat who can replace the "I was following the rules," creed with a new mantra: "I was just using common sense."

 

I don't think so, Tim.  Not really.

 

There's two reasons for this - one, people who do the right thing, live clean lives and put others before themselves make for lousy scandals.  In fact, if ever we come across someone that seems to be too good to be true, we will (or at least their opposition will) leave no stone unturned in their drive to find a fatal flaw.  We almost relish tearing down our heroes.

 

This is particularly true where the media is concerned - after all, it's part of their job to hold people like politicians and leaders of corporations both profit and not to account.  Scandal sells - do-gooders are boring.

 

We know this to be true for a simple reason - there are politicians and bureaucrats who try to do what is right instead of what the rules state or what convention suggests.  More than that, there are countless individuals who give freely of their time for causes they believe in.

 

These stories aren't celebrated because the media isn't looking for them and people who focus on doing for others tend not to be good at sales (or golf).

 

Two - we keep using this phrase, "common sense;" I don't think it means what we think it means.

 

If a person's goal is to be personally successful and wealthy, then it's common sense to follow the rules that put more money in your pocket.  If you're at all experienced in the ways of partisan politics, then common sense tells you that it's possible to spin your way out of almost anything.

 

On the other hand, common sense also suggests that doing the right thing in a social context can be bad for your personal success.  It's common sense, maybe, to bring forward legislation that's good for everyone, but will that sell?  Who can you pick fights with and get media traction/funding dollars through if you're not pissing people off strategically?

 

If anything, common sense tells us that proactively doing what's right provides no tangible benefit while "following the rules" can provide benefit with a minimum, easily-deflected complaint.

 

So where does this leave us?

 

Any solution requires proper identification of the problem.  Our problem isn't that people aren't using "common sense" - it's that the whole notion of common sense is a myth.

 

People aren't rational actors - we like to think we are, because we like the idea that we're in control of our lives, but we aren't.  Much of what we think of as "common sense" is evolutionary hard-wiring; the rest is emotionally-filtered experiential memory run through a our cognitive sequencer.

 

Until we accept that we're not consciously in charge of our own actions, we shall remain beholden to neurochemical behaviours.  We have to stop waiting for that fictional perfect leader to come to town and set us right and start carrying the torch ourselves.

 

That may not be common sense, but it's the truth.

 

Andrew Leslie: Honour Among Politicians (UPDATED)

"Justice must needs be a good thing, and the old proverb still holds good; thieves are never rogues among themselves."

So we're hearing that Andrew Leslie claimed $72,000 in expenses to move down the street.  Bought-and-paid-for advocates are shouting to high heaven about the gross entitlement of the man, looking after his own interests even as wounded veterans who are trapped in PSTD and may not have access to/know how to use the Internet are left suffering.

The first thing that struck me when I read this story was Leslie's quote - "The Department of National Defence handles and pays all the costs for packing, shipping... The overwhelming majority of expense is certainly the real estate fees."

To all the entitled, selfish bastards out there - do you have any idea how much it costs to provide you healthcare, infrastructure and the like?  I'm referring very particularly to Million Dollar Murray, that contemptible human being who claimed a million bucks in services.

It's possible Leslie knew he was entitled to a move, found a place to move to and then left the rest to the system to handle.  Does that absolve him of the price tag?  No more than living in society absolves anyone who accepts our democratic sausage without asking how it gets made.  We have no idea what he knew, what else he was engaged in at the time or what standard protocol for anyone in his position is, whether they plan to run for office or not.

That's all different of course - people going about their lives in a social system don't know and honestly, don't care about the cost borne by government for the ins and outs of their daily existence.  The cost of Ministerial travel is necessary, the cost of Executive pay is validated and the like, unless it comes to public scrutiny.  Ours is not to question why, right?  Ours is to hear and outcry.

The next thing that comes to mind is a passage from Peacekeeper: Road to Sarajevo by then-Major General and former Conservative candidate Lewis MacKenzie wherein he tells the tale of he and other military folk demanding status-appropriate transit for the commander of their UN mission.  If you were to ask the soldiers who have served under Leslie - how would they feel about this expense, as we're talking about their wants and needs here?  Irrelevant, of course - only the opinions that serve the narrative matter.

When I first hear Leslie's name raised in relation to one of Justin Trudeau's recorded policy talks, I made a point of connecting with friends in the military for their take on the man.  All were positive - one guy who had served with Leslie said "he's the real deal - men willingly follow him."  That was what I needed to hear.  If the people whose lives had hung on Leslie's decisions felt he was a good, competent and committed man, I was willing to give him a chance.

But politics isn't about leadership and some politicians have less honour than thieves.  For them, winning is all that matters; anything that provides that win is acceptable.  Laws can be broken, reputations trashed, good people thrown into the ovens to burn, so long as when the ash settles they're the ones left dining on the right side of the House.

Remember when Stephane Dion was called unpatriotic?  Remember when a legal coalition was called illegal?  Remember going over the heads of Parliament and even the Governor General?

We have moved into this parallel world where ends justify means and anything that can be used to destroy an enemy is all that counts, while anything that boosts an ally is all that matters.

Our veterans (Andrew Leslie included) haven't made tough sacrifices in defense of both our country and the principles we supposedly hold dear so that aggressive, petty partisans can tilt at whatever windmill suits their narrative.  That's not good government, nor a just society. 

Our veterans are not pawns in a partisan game, props when convenient and whiners when not - they, not some politician or their backroom operators, are the ones that stand on guard for our country.

They deserve better than this.  And so does Canada.

UPDATE 20/2/14:  It must be an unsettling experience, especially coming from a profession that places such high stock in notions of personal honour - unlike, say, politics.

Politics is about winning.  Winning comes at someone else's loss.  When it's about winning - not achieving - everyone loses.

It's time to change the game.

Winning the Leadership Deficit

But then, why would Ms. Horwath mess with an approach that has been working for her so far?

Why indeed?  For her to do anything other, in fact, would be detrimental to her cause - i.e. winning.

Winning is what politics is all about.  In theory, you need to win so that you can implement some kind of plan (or as is more often the case, stop some other Party from implementing theirs); in practice, however, it ends up being about stacking the deck to facilitate future wins.

This, you see, is the lesson that political operators have been learning over the years as they look at the playing field and see who's scoring wins and how.  Attack ads, robocalls, false insinuations, bald-faced lies, emotional button-pushing, muzzling bureaucrats, opposition groups and even your own staff fit into this bill.

Speaking of Bills - how about that oddly-named Fair Elections Act?  The Tories have said they're all about hyper-competitiveness in the House and across the Commons; government and anything that fosters equity gets in the way of that.  Anyone that speaks against this clearly isn't using their big-girl voice.

When smug, entitled hacks who've never had to fight for democracy start deciding who the enemies of the state are and doing everything within their increasingly centralized powers to bring them down, we have a problem.

The sad part is that those win-centric elites have no idea just how big that problem is becoming.  While they decry the authoritarian way Vladimir Putin is peering into the bedrooms of his nation - as well as those of all its guests - we're seeing the same sort of thing happen to an increasing degree here.

It's like a switch was flipped somewhere in the recent past - we've gone from "the voters are always right" with leaders needing to respect results to "the leaders are always right" and therefore skewing the process so that voters deliver the results those leaders want.

Rob Ford is up for re-election as Mayor soon - anyone want to hazard a guess what examples his campaign team is looking to borrow from?

When moderates like Andrea Horwath are willing to check their beliefs (and integrity) at the door if they feel that's the price of getting in, they validate and reinforce the worst offenses committed by their peers.  

The bottom line is this - you govern how you win.  If you break some rules or ignore some issues to get through the door, it is next to impossible to change your playbook once you get the corner office.  Why would you want to break what's clearly worked?  If anything, history shows that leaders increasingly fall into the trap of questionable tactics the longer they're in charge.

The people up top have an increasingly narrow focus as they put the win before absolutely everything else.  This is dangerous, not just because of the choices (or refusal to make choices) it leads them to make, but for all the other concerning trends out there they're not paying attention to.

Which is why fewer and fewer people are looking to the top for leadership.

Thank god we are starting to see true leadership emerge from within.

The Politics of Convenience

Wait - don't ask Hudak just now, in the middle of a byelection in labour-friendly Niagara Falls where anti-union rhetoric doesn't play well and local issues predominate.

Instead, for clues on where he's been and where he's going, look at Hudak's 18-month anti-union campaign.

If your beliefs come first, you have no issue standing by them all the time, not just depending on your audience.  That's what leadership is about - convincing people of the merits of your vision.  It's time consuming, requires an ability to listen and above all, it takes compromise.  People need to know you take them seriously.

If you don't, they won't take you seriously.

And they wonder why the public is cynical about politics.

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.

Ford Quality: Snobelen Nails It

The real lesson of the J&J response to crisis was the championship of the company's principles, to serve people and communities, over the immediate financial concerns.  J&J, at least in that moment, were clear about their priorities.

People are generally a cynical lot - and not without good reason.  When people say "all politicians are all the same, they're just in it for themselves" or "corporations care about nothing but lining the pockets of their CEOs" they have plenty of examples to turn to prove the point.  In fact, there seem to be new examples almost weekly.

What we don't hear a lot of are stories of people and institutions who are prepared to stick to their mission statement (i.e. respect the taxpayer's dollar, run an open and accountable government) in general practice.

It doesn't means stories like that don't exist - in fact, there are some companies out there who seem to be walking the walk both through crises and times of smooth sailing.  Integrity doesn't make for a sexy story, though, so the media isn't selling it and if they were, odds are we wouldn't buy it.

Therein lies the great social paradox - there's not a lot of public reward in doing the right thing.  If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, sure, but if you aren't used to living your principles on a daily basis it can be difficult to switch gears under the blinding light of public scrutiny.

What's the answer?  It's by embodying what Simon Sinek describes as the essence of great leadership:

"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking."

  - Henry Ford

There's no need to fear getting caught when you're always doing what you know to be right.  Seeing a record of integrity, when accidents happen - as they invariably do - people will be willing to forgive you.

Success Will Come and Go, But Integrity is Forever (Amy Rees Anderson)

Above all else - to thine own self be true.

 

 

Success Will Come and Go, But Integrity is Forever

 

 

If I could teach only one value to live by, it would be this: Success will come and go, but integrity is forever. Integrity means doing the right thing at all times and in all circumstances, whether or not anyone is watching. It takes having the courage to do the right thing, no matter what the consequences will be. Building a reputation of integrity takes years, but it takes only a second to lose, so never allow yourself to ever do anything that would damage your integrity.

We live in a world where integrity isn’t talked about nearly enough. We live in a world where “the end justifies the means” has become an acceptable school of thought for far too many. Sales people overpromise and under deliver, all in the name of making their quota for the month. Applicants exaggerate in job interviews because they desperately need a job. CEOs overstate their projected earnings because they don’t want the board of directors to replace them.  Entrepreneurs overstate their pro formas because they want the highest valuation possible from an investor. Investors understate a company’s value in order to negotiate a lower valuation in a deal. Customer service representatives cover up a mistake they made because they are afraid the client will leave them. Employees call in “sick” because they don’t have any more paid time off when they actually just need to get their Christmas shopping done. The list could go on and on, and in each case the person committing the act of dishonesty told themselves they had a perfectly valid reason why the end result justified their lack of integrity. 

 

It may seem like people can gain power quickly and easily if they are willing to cut corners and act without the constraints of morality. Dishonesty may provide instant gratification in the moment but it will never last. I can think of several examples of people without integrity who are successful and who win without ever getting caught, which creates a false perception of the path to success that one should follow. After all, each person in the examples above could have gained the result they wanted in the moment, but unfortunately, that momentary result comes at an incredibly high price with far reaching consequences.  That person has lost their ability to be trusted as a person of integrity, which is the most valuable quality anyone can have in their life. Profit in dollars or power is temporary, but profit in a network of people who trust you as a person of integrity is forever.

 

Every one person who trusts you will spread the word of that trust to at least a few of their associates, and word of your character will spread like wildfire. The value of the trust others have in you is far beyond anything that can be measured.  For entrepreneurs it means investors that are willing to trust them with their money. For employees it means a manager or a boss that is willing to trust them with additional responsibility and growth opportunities. For companies it means customers that trust giving them more and more business. For you it means having an army of people that are willing to go the extra mile to help you because they know that recommending you to others will never bring damage to their own reputation of integrity. Yes, the value of the trust others have in you goes beyond anything that can be measured because it brings along with it limitless opportunities and endless possibilities.

 

Contrast that with the person who cannot be trusted as a person of integrity.  Warren Buffet, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway said it best:, “In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy.  And if they don’t have the first one, the other two will kill you.”  A person’s dishonesty will eventually catch up to them. It may not be today, and it may not be for many years, but you can rest assured that at some point there will always be a reckoning.

 

A word of advice to those who are striving for a reputation of integrity: Avoid those who are not trustworthy. Do not do business with them. Do not associate with them. Do not make excuses for them.  Do not allow yourself to get enticed into believing that “while they may be dishonest with others, they would never be dishonest with me.” If someone is dishonest in any aspect of his life you can be guaranteed that he will be dishonest in many aspects of his life. You cannot dismiss even those little acts of dishonesty, such as the person who takes two newspapers from the stand when they paid for only one. After all, if a person cannot be trusted in the simplest matters of honesty then how can they possibly be trusted to uphold lengthy and complex business contracts?

 

It is important to realize that others pay attention to those you have chosen to associate with, and they will inevitably judge your character by the character of your friends. Why is that?  It is best explained by a quote my father often says when he is reminding me to be careful of the company I am keeping:  “When you lie down with dogs you get fleas.” Inevitably we become more and more like the people we surround ourselves with day to day. If we surround ourselves with people who are dishonest and willing to cut corners to get ahead, then we’ll surely find ourselves following a pattern of first enduring their behavior, then accepting their behavior, and finally adopting their behavior. If you want to build a reputation as a person of integrity then surround yourself with people of integrity.

 

There is a plaque on the wall of my office which reads: “Do what is right, let the consequence follow.” It serves as a daily reminder that success will indeed come and go, but integrity is forever.

~Amy (for my daily blogs go to www.amyreesanderson.com/blog)

A Gerard Kennedy Story (3)

 

Political campaigns are full of little stories both positive and negative that never make the news. These random encounters or tactical choices offer windows into the characters of the candidates and their teams. Here's one from Team GK:

 

So technically not a story about Gerard Kennedy, there's an important connection - you'll have to read all the way through to find out what that is.

 

The first politician I worked for is one that I actually campaigned against. 

 

It was 2003; the Liberal MPP for my home riding of Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh at the time) had retired and the nomination was up for grabs.  My parents were friends with a couple of the candidates; they agreed to help the first one that reached out to them and I offered to help at the nomination.

 

That candidate was Brian Lynch, a capable man who had served as Mayor of Cornwall in a previous political life.  He wasn't much of a risk-taker and that was reflected in his approach.  Opposing him was a former political staffer, Denis Sabourin and a retired school teacher who'd served in municipal politics in the Counties, Jim Brownell.

 

The night of the nomination meeting, a small group of protesters gathered outside the Cornwall Civic Complex.  I went out and asked them about their concerns - they were looking for a provincial response to allegations of historical sexual abuse in the community.  They said they weren't trying to cause a fuss, they just wanted to know that those seeking to represent them cared enough to listen.  I respected their effort to be heard and told them I would go ask Brian, which I did.  The answer he gave me, sadly, was one I have heard too often in politics: "there's no votes outside this room, so it's not worth the time."  Lynch lost my support right there.  He would go on to lose the nomination.  His resentment at this loss caused him to leave the Liberal Party and join the NDP, which was telling.

 

The man who won was the only candidate who took time to listen to those protesters - Jim Brownell.  Jim would go on to win the seat and serve two terms faithfully as MPP for the riding.  Along the way he got those protesters their Inquiry, too.  It was tricky politics, perhaps, but the right thing to do and a necessary healing process for the community.  This is why Jim was so effective as a leader - he never lost sight of his mandate, which was to strengthen his community. 

 

Years later, he invited me to interview for him.  "I know you supported another candidate," Jim said as we chatted. "That doesn't matter.  You're a person of good character and I respect your contribution.  I'd love to have someone with your dedication on my side."  With that, I became a member of Team Brownell, a team that would reach beyond his paid staff and come to include most of the Liberals at Queen's Park.  Jim didn't buy the respect, admiration and loyalty of all these folks; he earned it simply by being himself.  People were willing to help him then and remain loyal to him now because there is never cause to doubt what he stands for. 

 

While Jim is supporting Eric Hoskins for leader this weekend, the candidate who I feel resembles him the most is Gerard Kennedy.  Gerard's a guy of unquestionable integrity who has inspired and retains the loyalty of the staff who have worked with him over the years.  He's also someone that has never lost sight of what he believes in, which is challenging and empowering people to reach their full potential.   Gerard doesn't cut corners and therefore never has to worry about the consequences of doing so.  This unwavering commitment makes him fearless, which can be intimidating to those who don't hold to that standard. 

 

Perhaps most importantly, though, Gerard is a guy who listens.  Gerard will stop and talk to stakeholders in a room, people on the street, even protesters on the line.  He understands that politics isn't about him, or even the Party - it's about us.  All of us.  Gerard gets that the slow erosion of public faith in politics is largely due to the cynical approach taken by many political people, of all partisan stripes, to ignore people they don't feel are useful to them.  As easy as it might be to paint the other - other candidates, Parties or stakeholders with one brush, Gerard knows that's a short-sighted approach.  His end goal isn't to win the Leadership - that's just a step along the journey.  His mission is to nurture a stronger Ontario where everyone has access to the tools they need to succeed.

 

If you've taken the time to read my post, you know why it is I continue to support leaders like Jim Brownell and Gerard Kennedy.  I have faith in what they can achieve, given the opportunity, just as they believe in what we can accomplish when given the chance.

 

With that kind of leadership, we can get Ontario working again.

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump - the Russell Oliver of US Politics

 

Was it going to be a divorce shocker?  The revelation that Obama was actually born in Area 51?  What juicy political gossip did Trump have up his sleeve?

 

Actually, it turns out he had nothing up his sleeve other than money.  His big, revealing announcement wasn't announcing anything revealing at all - he simply wanted to put out an offer, money for what he hopes is "dirt" on the President. 

 

Just like the Cashman, execpt with records in place of jewels or gold.

 

Trump is a hugely successful businessman, just as Romney is.  Their approach, though, is terrible for politics.  It'll rile up the already-converted, sure, but will turn off the average undediced voter and will actuallly work against the GOP.

 

Money can buy you many things, Mr. Trump, but political sense isn't one of 'em - and neither is integrity.

 

Oh, yeah!

 

Andrew Coyne: In Canada, credibility trumps power. And it isn’t even close

To put it in two words - integrity matters.

 

In April of 2009, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, announced that the bank would be holding its benchmark interest rate steady for the next 15 months. Around the world, the reaction was instantaneous and universal: “Ah. I guess that means the Bank of Canada will be holding interest rates steady for the next 15 months.”

 

When the governor says he will do something, that is, people believe him. That credibility is partly personal, partly institutional. It is a reputation that has been earned over many years, under both Carney and his predecessors: A Bank of Canada governor does not make promises he will not keep, or say things he knows to be untrue. More than an expectation, it is almost a definition.

 

Contrast that with his counterparts in politics, even in the highest office. Were the prime minister — any prime minister, at least of recent times — to announce the time of day, most people would disbelieve it. That, too, is a matter of reputation. Prime Ministers have told such whoppers of late — have gone to such escalating efforts to convince the public that this time they really meant it, only to betray them yet again — that their position has been greatly weakened.

 

They have institutional power. They do not have the broader power that comes with credibility, of being able to shape events not directly, but indirectly, through the expectations and actions of the public. The governor can assume the public’s trust, and plan policy accordingly. A prime minister, having squandered the public’s trust, cannot.

 

Of course, a Bank of Canada governor — like other independent office-holders, the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, and so on — does not have to campaign for election, or worry that he will be bumped aside by a more unscrupulous rival. Integrity of that kind, a politician might say, is a luxury he cannot afford.

 

And of course he would be right. Politics is about packs; the more ruthless, more disciplined, more pack-like of the parties mauls the others into submission. It prizes loyalty, not before all other virtues, but to their exclusion. We hunt together, the aspiring politician is told. Stick with the pack. And so each learns to scrape and smear, to manipulate and deceive, to promise one and threaten another, exactly as he is told.

 

That is how institutional power is won. Everyone understands that. What is interesting is what happens when power collides with principle: when the pack confronts, not another pack, but a determined individual of conscience. Nothing has prepared the pack for this. Faced with someone they cannot frighten, and who does not want anything from them, they are bewildered. All of their normal tactics and approaches are suddenly useless. All of their power turns to dust.

 

We are seeing this just now with regard to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Various ministers of the government have been sent out to smear him, first claiming he was incompetent, then, when his numbers were borne out, that he was exceeding his authority. Through it all the PBO has kept digging, kept issuing his reports, kept demanding to see the data to which he is entitled under the law. And slowly, grudgingly, the government has been forced to yield.

 

But this is hardly the first time we have seen this play. When Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s report on the sponsorship scandal came out in 2004, accusing Liberal Party officials and friendly bureaucrats of conspiring to break “every rule in the book,” there were furtive attempts to go after her as well. Whisper campaigns were put about to the effect that she was out of control, that she was embarked on a “witch hunt.” We recall how that turned out. Whatever institutional power the government might have possessed, Fraser’s reputational power demolished it. It wasn’t even a fair fight.

 

The current government fared no better in its efforts to smear its own appointee as Auditor General, Michael Ferguson, after his report exposing mismanagement and fraudulent bookkeeping in the F-35 program. Even as the government was pretending to accept his findings the former parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister, Laurie Hawn, was circulating a letter accusing the Auditor General of misunderstanding such basic terms as “acquisition,” of being unable to get basic facts right, even of being “disingenuous.” But the public knew whom to believe.

 

To be sure, part of the power of an auditor general or parliamentary budget officer, like that of a Bank of Canada governor, is institutional: they have certain powers and immunities that make it difficult for governments to intimidate or resist them. But much of it depends on the conduct of the individual in that office, and of its previous occupants — the reputation for independence and integrity they accumulate over the years.

 

And part of it is cultural. As cynical as we may be about our politicians, there is something ingrained in Canadians that honours the individual who will not “be reasonable,” will not “go along,” will not accept that “this is how it has always been done.” That isn’t true everywhere, but it is here. When the call to conscience comes, it finds an echo. But the reason we know what it sounds like is because we have had examples — because of those individuals in our past who have been willing to stand up, alone if necessary, against the power of the pack. I have in mind one such in particular.

CFN - Political Planks on a Burning Platform (Updated)

“That was when we really thought we were going to bring about the change required.  It didn’t happen so successfully and I think Justin and others are of the view that ‘renewal’ became a word that just started not to work anymore.”

 -          Katie Telford

Politics, like any good drama, is built on conflict.  At its best, from an audience perspective, politics delivers high-tension clashes at multiple levels simultaneously with nations facing threats upon their shores while provinces, Parties and partisan operatives battle each other for dominance.  It’s why shows like Game of Thrones are so popular; nothing makes for compelling viewing quite like actors fighting to the death on a burning platform. 

Canadian politics, alas, tends to be low on hyperbole and weak on dramatic content.  That’s why unless you’re a CanCon political junkie or a Conservative researcher, you probably missed the little piece of Liberal drama that played itself out last week.  Like the best dramas, this tale began on a hopeful note, spiraled into conflict and has now moved into intrigue.

It started off innocently enough, with Justin Trudeau giving an impassioned speech heralding his entry into the Liberal leadership race.  Rather boldly, he laid out a vision that reached beyond the scope of the Party and included our entire political system.  Canadians, he suggested, are hungry for a vision of Canada’s future “grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust.”  Trudeau’s stated goal is to bring values like honesty, integrity, respect and cooperation back into Canadian politics.  “When,” he asks us, “was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted?”

Voters are cynical about politicians, and rightly so.  Our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran on the promise of ushering in a new era of accountability and transparency.  On the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, that message appealed to the average Canadian.  Since gaining power, however, Harper has been neither accountable nor transparent.  He has moved to limit public access to committee debates, has stifled information flow to the media – his government has even denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position of their own design. 

If we’re wary of politicians, we’re downright suspicious of the people who work behind the scenes for them.  We know that Harper’s hired guns aren’t interested in strengthening democracy; they themselves tell us as much.  Nick Kouvalis happily states that he gets paid to end the careers of liberal politicians, while Tim Powers readily admits that the Conservatives are happy to misrepresent the facts if it allows them to keep the Opposition on the defensive.  At the end of the day, does it really matter what a Leader says, when it’s folk like this pulling the strings?

For this reason, engaged Canadians are increasingly paying attention to the people behind the curtain.  If we’re going to invest in a Party to drive our country forward, we want to know something about what’s under the hood.  Perhaps it was in recognition of this that Team Trudeau agreed to an interview with Michael den Tandt, skirting traditional political wisdom that suggests political staff be neither seen nor heard, and kicking off the next act in our little drama. 

If Trudeau’s speech was the teaser to the campaign, the den Tandt piece was like a making-of featurette.  It introduced us to a likeable production crew that clearly supports the vision laid out by their leader.  In addition to Katie Telford, a bright young mother with tons of both idealism and political experience (full disclosure, she’s a former colleague of mine), we have former Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale Omar Alghabra, Ben Chin (a former reporter of South Korean heritage) and the more mysterious of the Trudeau brothers, Sacha.  Named but not interviewed was Gerry Butts, a man who is not only gifted in his ability to craft political strategy but also someone who only dedicates his time to things he believes in.  Former political staff like me still look up to people like him.

Not a bad crew to have supporting you, really – and unlike a Kouvalis or a Powers, these folk have made it clear their goal isn’t to defeat the opposition at all cost.  “It’s about who’s willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they’ve been in before, or (whether they’ve) been involved in past battles,” as Telford says.  But why, some might ask, is she the one saying this at all?  There’s a reason why conventional wisdom suggests staff should stay in the backroom; when they draw attention to themselves, support teams draw the focus away from the person who will actually have his name on the ballot.  It’s not smart, politically.

One of the people pointing this out is Warren Kinsella, Bad Boy Liberal Strategist and a man with more hard-won election scars than most political staff ever has skin in the game.  When it comes to all this campaign strategy stuff, Kinsella knows of what he speaks – he wrote the book on it, literally (and if you haven’t read The War Room, I highly recommend it).  Kinsella compares political strategy to the process of making sausages (a bit ironic, given the unfolding tainted meat scandal); the less revealed to the public and your opponents, the better.

It’s a point worth raising.  As Kinsella notes, the folk supporting Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff all dabbled with media exposure, while the campaign teams for Stephen Harper did not.  As a strategy, this worked out pretty well for Team Harper; despite being implicated in a scheme to bribe a dying man for his vote, being found in contempt of Parliament and the ongoing robocall scandal, among others, the Conservatives have clawed their way to a majority government and are now free to do as they please.  By never going off message, allowing few of his Caucus to speak to the media and holding his operators to an omerta-like code of silence, Harper presents a thin target for his opponents.  As for the other guys, well – go look for them now.

This Harperian method makes for great politics, but is terrible for the long-term health of our Canadian democracy.  “The political system has failed many Canadians in clear and tangible ways,” suggests Alison Loat, Co-Founder and Executive Director of democracy watchdog the Samara Institute.  As Trudeau stated so eloquently in his launch-speech, we no longer trust politics, neither the leaders nor the people who support them.  Harper doesn’t shoulder all the weight for this problem – he’s merely taken an emerging trend and pushed it further, faster than anyone expected.  It’s because of this sort of cynical governance that Canadians, particularly younger ones, are proactively opting not to vote. 

Only 61.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters cast ballots in the last Federal election, and that was considered an improvement.  Youth turnout was even lower, with only 38.8 choosing to support a candidate or Party.  Feeling like their vote has no meaning and that all Parties are the same, these Canadians are choosing alternative methods of expressing themselves politically by participating in student protests or supporting movements like Occupy.

Kinsella himself has recognized this, time and again – the way politics works in Canada is changing.  As disenfranchised voters tune out, backroom operators are using increasingly aggressive tactics to win votes and eviscerate their opponents.  To avoid the consequences of scrutiny, these folk are extinguishing media and opposition access so that they can do what they have to do away from the spotlight.  What happens when people who don’t feel accountable to the public have growing amounts of influence on the political process?

According to the den Tandt article, Team Trudeau and Justin himself have collectively realized that it’s not just the Liberal Party, but the Canadian political process that is at risk of collapse.  That’s the burning platform; that’s the impetus for renewal.  Instead of engaging in old-school politics of Machiavellian manoeuvers planned and orchestrated by shadowy, unaccountable operators, Team Trudeau is trying to devise a new approach, one that is more transparent and accessible to the public while equally being more respectful to opponents.  In this, they’re following some wise words: “Never attack the individual.  We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

Which brings us to the last act of our little drama.  Warren Kinsella, a Liberal veteran who recognizes the need for some kind of renewal in politics offered some constructive criticism of the Team Trudeau approach.  Less discussion of process in the media, he suggests.  Staff should remain behind the curtain.  This is a valid position, one that has born political fruit for successive generations.  It doesn’t mean it’s the right one for today. 

According to Kinsella himself, his advice has been met with the kind of response that is typical of old-school politics; angry messages from Trudeau supporters, some of them delivered anonymously.  This is the sort of kindling from which new rivalries are made; it’s also the sort of personality conflict we’re sadly used to.  Sure, this kind of political theatre makes for great viewing, but it does nothing to address the burning platform and brings into question whether renewal is actually possible.  If politics is invariably a blood sport, you can hardly blame the Tories for being as ruthless as necessary to succeed – nor can you blame Canada’s youth for taking to the streets in protest.

For what it’s worth, I think that Trudeau is right.  I think it’s time for a political leader to embody the values they speak of and inspire the same from their team and the public at large.  I also think that Kinsella is right – political staff shouldn’t be using their position as a way to build their own brand.  Frankly, good leaders value their team personally and always make sure their contributions are properly recognized.  Having said that, we live in the days of Facebook and Twitter and IP addresses.  Whether we like it or not, everyone is in the spotlight.  Instead of trying to deny this, political people should always be thinking about how their comments, both verbal and posted, can reinforce and carry forward the vision they have chosen to support.  You never go wrong by standing up for what you believe in.

I would also suggest that political leaders need to spend less time attacking their opponents and micro-targeting voter blocks and instead start engaging all Canadians.  Democracy is a conversation and, like all conversations, it’s built on a foundation of shared values – including trust.  When we don’t trust others, we make them untrustworthy and become untrustworthy ourselves as a consequence.

Of course, all this suspicion and intrigue makes for great conflict.  Though Canadians do love their drama, I think there’s a growing recognition that if we don’t change something, we’re all going to get burned.  The Leader or Party that consciously sets the right example will find that while we enjoy the spectacle, what we truly respect is values-based leadership.

Will Trudeau be this leader?  Can his team renew Canadian democracy before the platform disintegrates?  I’ve got my feet by the fire and popcorn in hand, waiting to see how the next act unfolds.

UPDATE:  Case in point: My partner Lisa Kirbie goes on Sun News weekly to defend all things Liberal.  On the single occasion she voices concern - before and after Trudeau's "basic dictatorship" gaffe - she is derided by other Liberals.

Another Liberal warned Kirbie that she needed to get "on board" because "(Trudeau's) the leader." And so on.

Some people never learn, eh?