Peter MacKay: If Not For The Dog

My husband's skin has grown thicker with time, but he worries about what I and the rest of our family think more than anything.  Yet, I see the hours he puts in around his constituency and the time he spends on the road as Justice Minister, as he did previously as Minister of Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs, away from his loved ones at home.  Since I've known him when he was Foreign Affairs Minister, I have been repeatedly impressed by his empathy and compassion for women and those in need.

 

 

It's a powerful letter, this one.  In it, Peter MacKay's wife defends her husband as an empathetic, loving man with increasingly thick skin that, quite frankly, doesn't deserve the beating he keeps getting in the media.

 

I don't buy it.  I haven't since I first read it.

 

I've spent some time thinking about this instinctive rejection of the letter's tone and content.  Why do I intuitively feel it's too scripted, too all-encompassing and somehow incongruous wit the actions of the Peter MacKay we've seen on the public sphere for years and years?  Or perhaps, why does it seem consistent as the sort of play-the-empathy-card tactic that we've seen him use before?

 

It's possible that I'm a natural cynic, that I'm more partisan than I lead myself to believe or that I've programmed myself to be mistrustful of all things MacKay.  This is why I've spent so much time deconstructing my thoughts before writing this.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to the dog.

 

No, not, that dog.  The one MacKay borrowed to increase his empathetic appeal after his break up with Belinda Stronach. 

 

It was a clear optics play - a man who has wielded power, broken trust and manipulated countless friends and enemies alike in his quest for power was insincere coming across as a heart-broken man needing warm hugs to heal.

 

First off, the Belinda Stronach the world knows wouldn't have been interested in a weak-kneed man like that.  She's a power-broker and wants to be with people with equal drive and strength of will as she has.

 

McKay seems to like powerful women himself.  He knows the world he's in and would naturally want a partner who gets why he does what he does - 'cause a lot of it ain't nice.

 

Second off, back to that broken trust thing; MacKay lied to a friend about the future of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, selling out his brand and loyalties for what seemed like a good political deal.

 

Third off, back to optics - MacKay, in politics for ages, gets the game.  He uses it to his advantage.  That's what politicians do - they're poor actors, but they aim to frame their public persona none-the-less.

 

Fourth - his policy record doesn't match up with the bleeding-heart liberal his wife's letter portrays him to be.  Case in point, the recent prostitution legislation.

 

So it's not with cause that I question the sincerity, or at the very least the intent, of the letter.

 

One thing I still haven't been able to wrap my head around - if MacKay is working 16 hour days, when is it that he's doing all this story-reading, diaper-changing and bathing of his child?  The impression the letter tries to convey is that he's all things to all people, a superman.  I'm a dad and I've spent much time in and around politics - what I know is that when you're putting in 16 hour days, you're often kissing your kids quickly on your way out the door in the morning and kissing them on the head long after they've gone to bed when you return home.

 

As a Minister, MacKay spends more time on the road that I've ever done, making quality time with his kids and the recycling that much harder. 

 

Not to say he doesn't do these things, when he can - but when he can will be far less than what the letter implies.  It's a great line, though - the kind of thing a seasoned political staffer would come up with. 

 

That I'm even suspicious of whether the letter was written entirely by Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay is pretty disconcerting, but it doesn't come from nowhere.  We've seen lies, obfuscations, false statements, bribery of dying men, and many more egregious acts from the Party of which MacKay plays an important role - and he's been in the middle of many of these political truths that negate reality-based truth.

 

Which, of course, means that I'm even more interested in where the facts that are unquestionable (who raised Peter and how) come to play.  As the only boy, it sounds like, in a female-dominated household, was little Peter doted on?  Was he pushed harder for being a boy than his female siblings?

 

I have no idea how MacKay was raised, nor do I know the intimate details of his relationship with his family.

 

What I do know is that he has been a shrewd, manipulative political operator that knows the value of the right image, and has a tendency in playing the empathy card while trying to get others to come to his defense.

 

Peter MacKay may very well be an amazing dad, a loving husband and a devoted constituency man.  We have very little tactile information to go on either way.  What we do know, based on the public record, is that he is partisan first, politician to the max and not to be trusted.

 

It's really unfortunate how people like this taint all those around them, but that's what you focus on image over substance.

 

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.

A Contrast in Language

 

In Ontario:

 

Some bureaucrats are asking their staff to incorporate the language in both internal and external communications, including emails and correspondence to ministers.

But the cabinet office didn't order them to use the language, said a source in the premier's office.

Meanwhile, at the Federal level, we're still seeing things like “Not suggesting you are or were wrong,” Cyr answered in the last email of the chain. “A political truth can sometimes be different.”

 

 

Two different approaches.  The latter is about control, strength, owning the words that come out of everyone's mouths.  It sees bureaucrats as employees of the Government, not of the people, to be managed accordingly. 

 

The former is about empowerment, guidance, seeing the bureaucracy as a conduit between the vision and politicians chosen by the electorate and the people they all serve - the public.

 

Funny that its the first, not the second, approach that the Free Speechists and Libertarians seem to prefer.