Moving Ontario Forward Together

Without a strong Progressive Conservative or NDP voice to force accountability, Wynne's new majority government could find itself overly comfortable and cocksure.  While partisan games created inertia in the last session, the Liberals need the opposition's balancing powers.

Ha ha, Toronto Star!  I beat you to the punch.

The message rings true whoever brings it forward - the absolutely wrong thing for the Wynne Liberals to do would be get cocky and bulldoze their way forward in a Harper-like manner.

I sincerely hope the Opposition does get their act together, but it doesn't have to take an external Party to ensure government discusses before they decide and do; the best leaders catalyze collaboration all on their own.

Were I the governing Liberals, the first think I would do is reach out to the Opposition with a couple pieces of common policy that all Parties agree matters and can build common solutions around - mental health, particularly as it applies to growth in the Knowledge Economy/justice and healthcare costs and Open Government, essential for avoiding future process scandals.

Then, I would take a look internally and wonder if the machine of the Party is as modernized as it needs to be.  Beating peers in a shrinking water hole does  not mean you're well-adapted for bigger changes in the world around you.  With four years to work at it, now's the perfect time to reflect on where you're weaknesses lie and what best practices exist out there to learn from.  

This is advice that applies equally to the other Parties.

It's unclear who's going to be wearing which hat within the Liberal Party, but you can guarantee there are more than a few folk who feel entitled to position or comfortable with where they are.  Comfort breeds complacency, a terrible state of mind to have in a dynamic landscape.

Fortunately, we have a Premier that gets the importance of engagement and knows a thing or two about unpacking assumptions.

Wynne isn't know for being cocky; she's know for her commitment to engagement.

Well, here's an unprecedented opportunity to show what it looks like when we've got a woman in charge who believes that moving forward together means leaving no one behind.

Breakfast In Ontario

There's no reason that Ontario can't expand its role as a hub and become a centralized access point for innovation, industry, investment and human potential for the global village.

The Ontario Liberal Party's Common Ground online policy platform is drawing positive commentary as an innovative, purposeful and engaging use of social media.

 

It's early days yet, and it will take ongoing commitment from OLP staffers to keep their policy hub ticking and to dole out periodic value-add upgrades, but things like this can make a huge difference both in terms of fuelling policy the people will like and associating the Liberal brand with all kinds of positive things.

 

Of course politics isn't about being positive, it's about poking a stick in the eye of your opponents.  Therefore it should really come as no surprise that someone (or ones) out there in Oppositionland immediately started looking for ways to rain on the Common Ground parade.

 

Appropriately enough, it appears someone did a Google search of "common ground" to see if they could find any meme-worthy material (or likes music and is old enough to recall the mid-nineties).  In this effort, they landed on the line "we've got nothing in common/No common ground to start from" of the song Breakfast at Tiffany's by, funny enough, the band Deep Blue Something. 

 

It's a great song - upbeat tune, good to dance to.  When I was in university, I lived with a DJ who used to play it all the time.   We'd play it and drink Moody Blue before heading out to the bar.  Good memories.  Which is why I can recall how the rest of the verse (and chorus) went:

 

You'll say that we've got nothing in common

No common ground to start from

And we're falling apart

You'll say the world has come between us

Our lives have come between us

Still I know you just don't care

 

So it's not that the two Parties don't share common ground - only that one simply isn't interesting in trying.  But then:  

 

 CHORUS:
And I said, "What about 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'?"
She said, "I think I remember the film, yes
and as I recall, I think, we both kinda liked it."

And I said, "Well, that's the one thing we've got."

 

So it's kind of a silver lining sort of thing.  There's always common ground to stand on.  In fact, we always stand on the same ground - and breathe the same air, cherish our children's future, etc.

 

Not such a good meme theme to pick, when you think about it.  Regardless of who's seeing through who, though, there is so much left undone - massive, structural challenges that will require shared solutions with broad support to fix.  None of us are getting any younger; if we don't care enough to move beyond entrenched positions and end our differences, we can at least help make world safe for diversity (of ideas, of personalities, even of partisanship) tomorrow. 

 

I feel bad for those who choose not to get on the train - it's leaving the station regardless.

 

Political Fairness

"I would not do that," Wynne told the Star on Friday.  "I don't think that would be fair."

Of course, politics isn't about fairness.  Look across the aisle - do you think any of her opponents (or for that matter, large swaths of her team) care about fairness? 

The only code in politics is "win, then spin."

But there's more to government than politics.  There's also leadership.

Leadership is about creating the conditions for success - for your mission, your constituency and your team - and in that order.  Leaders don't even put themselves on the list - if they do their job well, their team will carry that part for them without need of whipping.

As Premier of Ontario, it's incumbent on Wynne to put the interests of the province and the Legislature ahead of those of her Party, meaning not kicking the Opposition when they're down.  When it comes to a choice between a direction that if better in aggregate but provides a win/misses an opportunity to trap the opposition vs. a lesser piece of policy that scores partisan points, leaders will always take the first choice.

After all, leaders leave no one behind, which is why we trust them to lead all of us in the first place.

It doesn't mean hugging the thugs you would stand against, so much as ensuring you have the best competition to truly  challenge your ideas and practises, ensuring the best possible result.

We don't see a lot of leadership in Canadian politics these days, which helps explain much of the democratic malaise we're facing now.

For anyone actually interested in leading, there's a lesson in this.

Policing and Politics: Putting Mission Before Tribe

“There’s a basic human instinct that says the ‘other’ is a threat. When we talk about the cops, or anybody else like that, we’re not suggesting they’re doing it out of malice. They are no more evil, no more malicious and no less human, “ Eng says.

We humans are a tribal species - it's hard-wired into our genetic code.  There's value in knowing what is prey and what is predator in the same way it's useful to have the ability to identify friend from enemy.

Think about that for a second; we identify with others based on a series of often arbitrary markers (type of clothes we wear, music we listen to, profession we practice, sport we play, faith we practice, Political Party we align with).

We externalize people the same way; we can look down upon whole groups of people who dress a certain way, who listen to a certain music or have a different ethnicity.  

I have all kinds of fun conversations with self-identified tribal people (lawyers, politicians, political operatives, law enforcement officers) who will rail with impunity against perceived others and act in a manner they would vilify their perceived opponents for.  One of my recent favourites involved a long-standing Liberal who referred to Conservatives as "all fucking assholes" with no morality, suggesting they need to be shown no quarter.  Of course, I regularly hear the same thing from the other side of the spectrum.  Stephen Harper clearly thinks that way.

Policing is a highly tribal field, partially from necessity; when you're in the line of fire, you need to know who is on your side and who isn't.  The distinct uniforms, vehicles and jargon used (to say nothing of the training) reinforces the notion that you are somewhat above the majority and definitively set against a specific subset - criminals.  Criminals don't wear redcoats, don't all speak the same language, so you have to identify them quickly in some form or fashion.  

It just so happens that crime emerges most commonly from those who are marginalized.  It's a fact of history that, in countries like Canada, there are far more marginalized "visibility minority" communities than "white" ones.  The cognitive association game comes in to play - cops are more likely to assume black men are bad guys in the same way Liberals or Conservatives are more likely to view each other as villains rather than human beings with lineage and motivations.

Asked about Price’s hiring last month, Doug Ford told a Globe and Mail reporter: “You can’t teach loyalty.”

The reverse is equally true; when you feel threatened by The Other it's a natural instinct to surround yourself with the familiar - people who look, think and speak the way you do.  This is why it's so common to find neighbourhoods that skew heavily towards one ethnic group or another.  It's also why, in fields like policing or politics, loyalty is valued above actual skill.  

The Fords have focused on the concept of Ford Nation - a tribe with a loosely defined belief system that you're either "in" and understand or you're "out" and you're a threat.  Mark Towhey was part of this system, until such time as he began to challenge the behvaiour of the Chief - at that point, he'd disengaged himself from the Tribe and was rebranded as The Other.  Of course, what Towhey was trying to do was his job - not as part of the Mayor's Court but as his Chief of Staff and as a public servant.  Price, however, puts the tribe first - even though his behaviour is questionable, the Fords will trust him as one of their own.

Politics is the essence of tribalism; Parties will fight against The Other and engage in ethically questionable practices to fend off the barbarians at the gate.  Since they are In and everyone else is Out, there's a certain sense of entitlement that comes with the status.  We have lots of examples of how this plays out gracing the headlines these days.

The problem is, we don't accept the concept of tribalism in polite circles any more - it makes us sound too uncivilized.  If you point out that a Tribe - say, a Political Party - doesn't practice what it preaches, it will react in a tribal way by ostracizing or attacking the source of the complaint.  The reaction then gets justified or ignored - they aren't being tribal, it's the other person who is out of line.  Omerta and circled wagons are the norm, rather than introspection and growth. 

Which brings us back to Mark Towhey.  Towhey, a military man, understood the concept of "the mission comes first."  That meant the Ford mandate moreso than even the Fords themselves.  Instead of being a courtier enabler, Towhey appears to have tried to help his boss realign so that their mission wasn't compromised.  For this loyalty to mission, he got fired.  It's tribally-motivated actions like this that will prove Ford's undoing in the end, as is always the case in politics.

What's the solution to this paradoxical dilemma, where competitive fields promote tribal identification, which emboldens bad behaviour, which perpetuates the division?

"The error that I think the force made was focusing the policy towards the rank-and-file officers.  I really think that race relations policy should be geared to top management.  As such, those policies would be articulated by management and it percolates down through the system."

In Other words, leaders need to start leading by example.

We simply have to stop enabling and protecting the folk at the top from their own failings - it's those failings that define the culture which perpetuates the cycle.  Of course, that means mixing up the people at the top of an organization (a police force, a Political Party) to be more reflective of those they will engage with in the field.  It also means teaching the people at the top that it's not about them, nor is it about the tribe - the mission must always come first.

It's as true in politics as it is in policing.

E-Government: Progressively Winning Canada

 “We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.”

 

Consider:

 

Governments at all levels are taking a hard look at how services can be delivered more effectively.

 

Canadians see the private sector as innovators of service delivery.

 

People are expected to continue using traditional channels (telephone, in-person, mail) but frequency of use is expected to decline.

 

Like it or not, a growing chunk of our lives are lived remotely, through keyboards and touchscreens.  Progressive thinkers like Don Tapscott look at the failings of our current service delivery models and the usage trends of youth and see opportunity.  Conservative thinkers like Andrew Keen fear an erosion of self and society. 

 

Those who see opportunity march forward to seize it.  Those who fear change put up walls and cling fast to the fading reality of yesterday.  If you were to chart this trend out, it would look like this:

 

Now, look at this trend through the lens of politics. 

 

The people on the far left - the innovators - are ahead of the curve, literally. If it's new, they're not only on it - they're trying to do one better.  Their hypomanic edge gives them the drive, the fearlessness and the sheer creative potential to build things that have never existed before.  These are the Mark Zuckerbergs, the Steve Jobs' and yes, the Chris Mazzas of the world, roman candles burning in the void, lighting the way forward.  These people chafe under restraint, rules, red tape, the yoke of consequence.  They want the freedom to do and if they vote, it's likely to be for whoever gives them space to build their legacy.

 

These are also the folk that produce dotcom bubble bursts and ORNGE.  Left completely to their own devices, they will fail the marshmellow test time and again, then use charm, deceit or threats to avoid accountability.

 

The people on the far right - the conservatives - are at the tail end of the curve, trying to wag the dog with their pleas for stasis.  They decry change as an erosion of the good world that has been and view Progress as synonymous with the Fall of Man.  There is no system to these social laggards, no evolution - just individuals in competition.  They want freedom to be, as they are, and if they vote, it'll be for whoever validates their silo-based world view and leaves them alone.
 

These are the people who fear not just change, but also difference.  Right off the bat, they will view the unfamiliar as threatening; their instinctive reaction to these perceived threats will  be to flee or fight.  If it comes to a fight, it'll be one to the finish - when you see the world as silos, you see others as alien, justifying whatever action is required to get the job done.  The marshmallow test?  Fear will almost always keep them from temptation.

 

Everyone between these poles, the so-called political mushy middle, are social consumers.  Depending on their genetics and life history, they can vacillate between the two extremes, generally looking to strike a balance between the bold, new and risky and the safe, static status quo. They won't want to be left behind, but they won't want to be first out the gate, either. They simply want the chance to participate in a meaningful, rewarding way.

 

 As they get on in life, these political centrists will become increasingly comfortable with the system they have grown up with, or fearful that change might bring uncomfortable uncertainty.  Unless, of course, that system is one prone to improvements, upgrades and a continuous series of status gold-stars that come with being an early adopter.

 

So what does this have to do with e-Government?

 

The Harper Government is emblematic of Canadian democratic institutions - it rests in the Late Majority phase of the spectrum, increasingly shifting from anything resembling bold towards shoring up its holdings.  An exanding amount of public resources are being allocated for that purpose, in fact. 

 

The same holds true of the Private Sector in Canada - hiring is decent on front-line service and widget-building positions but innovation - and as a result, productivity - is lagging.  Our social infrastructure is outdated, underfunded and unaccommodating.  Canada is becoming more conservative, which is why we are starting to fall behind other jurisdictions in terms of new potential.  As the world changes, it's becoming clear that the all-eggs-in-one-basket approach is going to fail, yet again, as it always does.

 

On the other end of the spectrum are the social entrepreneurs, the engineers of tomorrow's online infrastructure - they are pushing envelopes, diversifying, expanding, churning out new code for consumption.  When these folk get the financial traction to turn ideas into products, the people, also known as the voters, are buying it up.

 

They like the Internet.  They like new technology.  Increasingly, they want to use new technology and the Internet to access public services, with two caveats - they want it to be efficient and they want ownership of their own content.

 

At the front-end of this wave are the traditional early adapters, youth - people who aren't voting so much these days in no small part because they don't see their world reflected in the white-wig reality of our outdated political institutions.

 

How do progressives earn, entice, woo these youth votes?  How to they inspire the early and late majorities to hop on the progressive bandwagon?  Not by appealing to the laggards with the tribal approach and go-for-the-gut tactics that have fueled the conservative movement federally and in jurisdictions like Toronto - you don't win races by running backwards to the starting gate.

 

You do it by leading from the front.

 

So yeah - e-Government. 

 

Progressives need to stop seeing themselves as competing tribes and instead recognize progress itself as a movement that, when they push forward at just the right pace (but not so hard as to burn themselves out), they can lead.  This means offering competing visions of what Canada's Digital Future will look like and developing/beta-testing that future with their own internal infrastructure.  Online, map-based social service platforms are a good way to go.  So too is the Hub World model frequently found in video games.

 

These sorts of innovative approaches are fun, bold and by their very nature, require the support of innovators - who are looking to create new things, anyway.  That's the first slice of the market covered.  Then, start discussing how these online models can actually support and enhance private-sector innovation; like a garden, the role of government is to create the right infrastructure to allow sustainable growth, not to impede it.  Smart business folk understand this concept already and will be supportive of initiatives that demonstrably allow them to flourish.  Now, you're into the magic zone where a trickle of an idea becomes the tidal wave of a movement - the mushy middle will want to be part of the change, too - they'll be afraid not to. 

 

Those that are afraid of change in the first place?  Well, they're not progressives in the first place, are they?  Done correctly, e-government will benefit the laggards despite making them uncomfortable.  That's certainly better than what we have now, where the laggards lead and the majority get left behind.

 

For anyone reading the tea leaves, the emerging trend lines are clear, as are the causes behind them.  If progressives are really looking for a win, they have to get passed the queasiness they're feeling about the massive changes required of them in how they operate - not by breaking laws and spreading themselves out flat, but by breaking their self-imposed glass ceilings and reaching higher.

 

It's risky.  It's unprecedented.  It's uncomfortable.  But progress always is.

 

The question for progressive players in Canada, then, is who's content to be a RIM - and who wants to be the Apple?

 

Political Sales - Know Your Audience

 

In selling, the character trait of patience is at least as important as, and probably more important than, chutzpah. Customers are more likely to buy from people who have the ability to listen and to empathize than from people who are obsessed with closing a deal.

 

You can see politics as competition - destroying your opposition - or you can see it as sales.  You can agitate voters into voting against, but only in the absence of meaning.  What earns the people's trust, though, isn't knowing what you stand against, but what you stand for. 

 

Naturally, people want to know you stand for them.  Voters are always more likely to buy from and come back to the Party that listens to and empathizes with them.

Greta Hoaken: Volunteerism, Talent and Maximizing Personal Contribution

Because I know I can contribute, I therefore believe I can volunteer my contribution.

                     -Preston Tulay, former Peace Corps and UN Volunteer

One of the great joys of working on political campaigns is the people you meet along the way.  Depending on your role, you might interact with media or stakeholders looking to flag an idea or a concern; perhaps you'll have the chance to debate with representatives of other camps over competing visions.  Ideally, everyone gets the chance to interact with the candidate they support and some of the voters they're there to court.  The most inspirational folk you'll encounter, however, are invariably the volunteers.

 

This certainly was the case for me over the recently-concluded leadership campaign.  Team GK attracted a wealth of talent and dedication; volunteers committed their free time (or all their time) to the vision and cause we supported.  Gerard and his senior team wove together individual skills and lineages into a tapestry that was more than the sum of its parts - it was something I was humbled to be part of. 

 

What was even more humbling, inspiring and daunting was the chance to work alongside the wickedly sharp minds that were attracted to Gerard's liberal vision, best exemplified by Greta Hoaken.  Greta is a 17 year-old high school student; she first came in to the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It would have been easy to dismiss her as "student," but that's not how we operated - everyone got a chance to explore their potential and maximize their contribution to the campaign.  Even if a child knows her science project won’t win the science fair, she still gets that moment to perform.

 

Not that it would have mattered.  Greta's not a light that can be hidden under a basket; behind those wide eyes and bright smile burns an organizational and communications genius. 

 

One memory of many that sticks out clearly - Greta offering to help build delegate kits for the convention and within minutes, restructuring our system into one twice as efficient and better presented while confidently directing some seasoned pros to get the job done - and still working at it herself.  When people who make their living giving orders comfortably follow the lead of a 17 year-old, you know something special is happening. 

Beyond this, Greta offered solid communication ideas, helped manage traffic on the convention floor and did a televised debate on the Team's behalf, holding her own with some experienced communicators like Zach Paikin.  All very impressive from a fairly young woman - then you learn that she's also a journalist and CJPAC blogger who was already a news-making entrepreneur by the time she was 13.  I don't think I even had a paper route by that age. 

Best part - Greta, like so many of the volunteers on the GK Team, is unwaveringly dedicated to the vision we all took on: that government must be accountable, open and accessible to the people and that we must proactively provide people with the tools they need to succeed.  Despite her maximum potential being light years beyond what relative dotards like me can ever hope to reach, Greta remains humble - which is why she's only going to keep getting better as she grows into her place in society.  Just imagine what she will accomplish down the road.

 

So, yeah, I'm a big fan of Greta's and hope that she'll still remember me when she's running global campaigns in a couple of years.  The thing is, Team GK would have lost the value Greta brought if we had dismissed her based on first appearances - which would have been easier to do than we might comfortably like to think.  It was Gerard's commitment to inclusion and respect that helped hold us to a standard that ultimately benefited the Team's work.  With a little more time, who knows what we could have accomplished.  Of course, we all have the future ahead of us and the maximum potential of that liberal vision has yet to be realized.

 

There were other volunteers that offered value in unconventional packages; one fellow had a propensity to talk long and in circles, but when he hit his points, they were incredibly insightful.  Again, it would have been easy to dismiss him entirely, but we would have missed some important opportunities had we done so.  Two of the people on the team (one of them being me) deals with ADHD, which provided both a communications challenge to the rest of the team, but also an opportunity to kick the tires on any given plan before implementing it.

Guided by Gerard's vision we took the challenges, the frustrations the easy dismissals and looked at them all through the lens of opportunity.  Our constant question was "how do we bridge the gap efficiently and respectfully, gaining and sharing in equal measure through the process?"  How do we (to use the well-worn phrase) move forward together?

 

Kathleen Wynne is another leader like Gerard who doesn't waver from what she believes in, including respect, communication and collaboration.  The reason liberals who supported all leadership candidates are so comfortable with Wynne as our leader is that she represents the best of what we all believe in.

 

This, then, is the challenge that faces Premier Wynne and her team; to take the time to respect and foster the contributions of everyone who wants to be part of the vision, wherever they come from or whatever they bring to the table.  I'm confident that this will happen, because I believe in Kathleen Wynne as a leader.  When people see that their contributions will be welcomed, respected, solicited and honestly considered, you'll see more Gretas popping up in all kinds of unexpected places.

 

Everyone has value to offer - they just need the chance.  When they get it, everyone wins.

Mike Del Grande and A Lesson For Liberals

 

"Believe it or not I listen to what the lefties have to say."

- outgoing Budget Chief Mike Del Grande

I have no doubt that Del Grande did listen to them lefties, in the sense that he put himself in a place where their voices were picked up by his ear drums.

The fact that he refers to them by the stigmatic brand "lefties" suggests that while he might have listened, he didn't take those voices seriously. 

Del Grande can't be individually blamed for this oversight - we all live in glass houses when it comes to active listening. The average person will listen to conflicting positions strictly to develop counter arguments, instead of seeking clarity.

Rob Ford did the same thing. Stephen Harper does the same thing. Tim Hudak has never demonstrated the ability to actively listen.

The constituencies each of these leaders represent are fractured - a direct result of the divide-and-conquer approach they take to their politics. Their primary goal is to win, individually, meaning they automatically see other viewpoints as threats to success instead of opportunities for improvement.

When it becomes about winning, not achieving, you're lost.  Which, of course, is a big part of how we've gotten into our big social/democratic/fiscal mess in the first place.

Something for the Ontario and Federal Liberal Parties to think about as they pick their new leaders:

What do Liberals stand for? Partisan success and imposition of interest or active listening and shared solutions for all people, wherever they rest on the political spectrum?

Questions worth considering if we want to keep moving forward. 

A CONSCIOUS SOCIETY: Post-Secondary Education

Ideas for a Conscious Society

I'd love to hear your ideas and opinions; please drop them in the comments section or build your own platform!

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Here's a fact - people entering the workforce today are less likely to hold one job their whole lives than any generation previous. Not only will tomorow's employees cycle through multiple jobs; those jobs will straddle completely different employment sectors.  Core competencies today need to be more nuanced to stand out among tough competition but equally broad enough to be applicable to various fields.  The only way to build that kind of organic flexibility is for the workforce to have more direct ownership of its own labour.  The employers of tomorrow will be more like teachers than CEOs, motivating success rather than simply paying for it.

While the importance of education will only increase, it will no longer be enough for students to learn one or even two trades in post-secondary institutions, a process that with the traditional model would see them amass debts that would burden them for years. Workers need to be able to adjust rapidly to changing work conditions and opportunities, rebranding their skills and themselves multiple times over their careers.

That level of flexibility can only be built around a core of confident self-worth and an intuitive, communicable understanding of one's values.

Post secondary education needs to go beyond today's specialized information dump model and nurture sales skills, critical thinking, resiliency and above all, critical communication skills.

The nature of certification needs to change, too. While job postings might refer to "education or equivalent experience" there's no question that education trumps.  Employers rightly feel more comfortable knowing that a potential employee's skills have been certified by a reliable body.

Having said that, the Internet has changed the way information is distributed and absorbed. Varied life and work experiences provide valuable skills by osmosis. There are likely thousands of self-taught individuals who, with a bit of direction and some additional learning, could be adding greater value to our economy in high-need fields.

The hurdle they face is that we tie certification for specialization to specific curriculum.  Even the Second Career program, while a great concept, occasionally puts people in the position of having to replicate the wheel in order to get their papers.   Degrees in a given field obtained from different institutions will result in slightly differing skill sets, but all degree holders will equally be considered professionals. 

We need to uncouple certification from traditional education and make it easier for people to get recognition for the skills they have amassed and creating more opportunities for them to get work in their trades of choice.

Where's the best place to enact these changes and provide these opportunities? Online. We're already offering public services online. The US has a Road Map to create an entire digital government. Innovative post-secondary institutions are embracing both the possibility of online content and the opportunity to crowdsource ideas and engage students where they are - on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc.

Government must lead the way and empower greater online training and data exchange - an important step in transition positioning Ontario for success in the knowledge economy.

BEST PRACTICES:

- Laurentian University is truly embracing the potential of online student and stakeholder engagement.

- UExperience is leading the way in personalized education, helping their students internalize the skills they need to build careers that will engage them.

 

(CFN) The Politics of Opposition

November 6, 2012

“We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

-       Pierre Elliot Trudeau 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

CFN – Liberal Leadership season is settling in across Canada with races underway federally, in Québec and in Ontario.  Political people are lining up behind their preferred candidates and trying to convince others to join them.  Standard wisdom tells us that part and parcel of the running for game is running against.  As candidates actually declare, supporters are starting to ask themselves – if I stand for candidate A, why do I stand against Candidate B?  As with all political races, when the lines are drawn and the water hole of undeclared voters begins to shrink the contest inevitably turns into a competition not just of policy, but of personality.  But does it have to be this way?

 

Yes, it does – because when we vote, we’re not just selecting ideas we prefer, but trusting a leader to implement them.  Rob Ford’s win in Toronto was due at least as much to his perceived commitment to keeping his word as it was to his actual policies.  More than that, we pick leaders based on our perception of their ability to play politics successfully.  Part of Michael Ignatieff’s perceived appeal was that he would be the second coming of Pierre Trudeau.  A well-spoken intellectual with a bit of international seasoning would surely have the moxie needed to woo the masses and take on a rather bland Stephen Harper.  That didn’t work out so well because Ignatieff fell victim to the truest of political truisms – define or be defined.

 

Now, Justin Trudeau has ascended into the public spotlight in a fashion most candidates can only dream of, partly because he is the literal next-gen Trudeau, but also because he looks and sounds the part of a successful politician.  In the absence of specific policy, pundits have focused on how fresh and energized Trudeau will look squaring off against the two angry old men that are Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.  Justin Trudeau’s hair has gotten more press coverage than Mulcair’s stance on just about anything.  According to some polls (always to be taken with a grain of salt), Trudeau’s image alone could be enough to return the Liberal Party to government.  Potential leadership opponents have been gun-shy to enter the race, faced with the prospect of out-charming a political superstar.

 

This reality presents a bit of a conundrum for the Conservative Party, too; the personalized line of attack that worked so well against Ignatieff and his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, will bounce off Trudeau’s flowing locks harmlessly.  Canadians already feel they know Justin and like what they see.  The Tories face the much more daunting challenge of attacking Trudeau’s eventual policies as harmful to our nation’s security and economy.  That will be a tough card to play, as it can cut both ways.  Count on Stephen Harper to buffer attacks with an attempt to soften his own image; we might soon be seeing more of the infamous sweater vest.  Given that his entire political narrative has been built on an arc of opportunistic cynicism, it’s doubtful any such attempt will be taken seriously by anyone other than Harper’s most die-hard supporters.

 

It would be silly to deny the importance of personal brand in shaping political success – but what of personal attacks on competitors?  Is it possible to do politics without denigrating one’s opponents?  The evidence isn’t promising.  Political attack ads are nothing new – they’ve been around, in fact, as long as politics itself.  As the best policy choices tend to hover around the middle, personal attacks present clear opportunities for candidates to establish why their political brand is a safer, stronger one than that of their opponents.  Survival of the fittest, after all, isn’t about being the strongest but being the last candidate standing. 

 

There’s an unfortunate sidebar to this, though – when would-be leaders or Parties focus so intently on shoring up their own political brand and relentlessly attacking their competitors, politics becomes more about attack and defend rather than working together to create the best policy. This is when mistakes happen, as they did with the Walkerton tragedy in Ontario or as they’re happening right now with Harper’s mismanaged trade deal with China.  These sorts of mistakes foster disillusionment in the voting public, leading to lower turnouts at the polls and a weakening of our democratic system.  Is this an inevitable political paradox?  Is the politics of opposition necessary to win, but unavoidably damaging over the long run?

 

Not, I would argue, if one’s political brand is designed to be supportive (dare I say, leader-like) from the get-go.  One of my favourite campaign moments came in the 2003 Ontario general election when then-Official Opposition Leader Dalton McGuinty came to the defense of Premier Ernie Eves.  Eves had been rattling off the nonsensical insults that frequently crop up in the waning days of campaigns, calling McGuinty a pointy-headed reptilian kitten eater.  When asked about this by the press, McGuinty’s reply was political gold; “I know Ernie, and this kind of thing isn’t him.”  With one sympathetic phrase, McGuinty showed the class and empathy most of us want from our leaders and undercut his opponent without resorting to personal attacks himself.  McGuinty walked away from that election Premier of a majority government.

 

One of my favourite Ministers in the McGuinty government is Kathleen Wynne, one of the two declared candidates hoping to become the next Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.  The reason that I and many Ontarians of all or even no political stripes like Wynne so much is because she is sincere, dedicated and positive.  

 

In addition to this, she is consistent in both her thoughtfulness and in her personal integrity.  When she expressed discomfort with the recent prorogation to the Queen’s Park Press Gallery, there were few who assumed Wynne was strategically distancing herself from her Party for personal gain.  

 

Why?  Because the Wynne we heard that day was the exact same woman that expressed dismay when her Party backed down on increased sex education in Ontario’s public schools. 

 

Wynne remained consistent to her brand when she sent out a tweet Monday morning, congratulating her leadership opponent Glen Murray on a media interview:

 

Kathleen Wynne@Kathleen_Wynne

Just heard @Glen4TC on @metromorning Great job articulating your experience and ideas!

 

Now, I’m sure the people who actually get paid to do political punditry would disagree with me, but I’d argue that little line scored Kathleen Wynne the first point in Ontario’s leadership race.  She has demonstrated that the person who’s running for leader is the same one who was much respected as a Cabinet Minister, reaffirming her integrity and credibility.  She has complimented one of her opponents, setting the campaign respectability bar high and making it harder for anyone to use personal attacks down the line.  At the same time, she has set a positive tone for the race that will help avoid the fractious politics that often come with leadership races and could weaken the Liberal Party leading in to a likely spring election.  Not bad for a kick-off, I’d say.

 

Politics is perceived as a blood sport because it’s always been that way; this doesn’t mean it can’t change.  Just as there were days where it was unthinkable that a woman would have a vote, much less lead a Party or a province, there’s no particularly valid reason why we can’t put the politics of denigration behind us and move on with more respectful competition; such mindful contests could even be of strategic benefit, as I think Kathleen Wynne is teaching us.

 

Yes, politics is about fighting to the finish, but leadership is about setting the example.  It’s time for Liberals to show everyone just how progressive they’re willing to be.

 

Teaser For Next CFN Column on Liberal Leadership and the Politics of Opposition:

Kathleen Wynne‏@Kathleen_Wynne

Just heard @Glen4TC on @metromorning Great job articulating your experience and ideas!

Now, I’m sure the people who actually get paid to do political punditry would disagree with me, but I’d argue that little line scored Kathleen Wynne the first point in Ontario’s leadership race.  She has demonstrated that the person who’s running for leader is the same one who was much respected as a Cabinet Minister, reaffirming her integrity and credibility.  She has complimented one of her opponents, setting the campaign respectability bar high and making it harder for anyone to use personal attacks down the line.  At the same time, she has set a positive tone for the race that will help avoid the fractious politics that often come with leadership races and could weaken the Liberal Party leading in to a likely spring election.  Not bad for a kick-off, I’d say.

Is Ontario Ready for Collaborative Change?

The idea is to remove barriers to employment for everyone — not just able-bodied people, but also those with obvious physical or hidden mental challenges. With ODSP caseloads growing by 5 per cent a year, and most of the new and returning recipients coping with mental issues, it is no longer sensible or sustainable to hive them off and write them off.

 

There's growing consensus that the systems we have here in Ontario aren't working.  Healthcare is too feudal, social service supports are too fragmented - the list goes on.  The system that worked well enough once upon a time is past it's best-before date.  The problem, however, is the political risk that comes with big change.  In today's polarized, hyper-partisan political climate, it's guaranteed that opposing Parties will decry anything that speaks of bold reform.  But we can't go on as before. 

 

What's a province to do?

 

Here's a radical notion - picture we had three political leaders that thought more of achieving results, even if through working together, than of scoring political points by working against.  Imagine there was a core set of values that the Liberal, PC and NDP leaders all held and were willing to build shared solutions around.  Why, if there was an attempt by all three Parties to find and communicate consensus to stakeholders and voters, those big changes everyone says are necessary might just be doable - and with all Parties working together, we could actually get viable solutions that would be both effective and have longevity.

 

Of course, that's not doable with the current configuration - just witness the goings on at Queen's Park of late.  With Premier McGuinty exiting the stage, there will soon be a new leader for the Liberals, likely to be one of a few women with track records of finding shared solutions.  Andrea Horwath, for her part, has occasionally played the role of peace maker.  That leaves Tim Hudak as the sole leader who is adamantly committed to an election and hasn't exactly carved out a reputation as a team player.

 

Hudak has committed to a Spring election, no matter what happens between now and then.  Like Rob Ford, he's not interested in working together - he just wants to win.  Especially for Hudak, it's critical he does; if he doesn't, that's two general election losses and a lost by-election against him.  It would be the end of his political career and result in a PC leadership race.  IF that scenario were to play out, a strong contender for the PC leadership role would be the amazing Christine Elliot - a woman who is unquestionably in politics for the right reasons and willing to work with anyone to address the issues that matter.

 

 I'll get in trouble for writing this, surely - in partisan politics, you're supposed to wish the worst possible leadership on your opponents, not the best.  I'm terrible at being self-serving that way - besides, I actually love the idea of a Legislature that functions the way parliaments were intended to.  It might make for boring TV or news, but so what - you want spicy political entertainment, watch Game of Thrones.  Just imagine the possibilities if Ontario had three women leaders with shared goals willing to put the best interests of the province ahead even of their own partisan aspirations. 

 

It might just be the only way Ontarians can move forward - together.

 

Sandra Pupatello

Make no mistake - the Ontairo Liberal Party is blessed with a bevy of amazing Leadership potentials.  Each of the could-be-candidates that have been buzzed about would do an amazing job as Premier; each has the smarts, the vision, the empathy and the decisiveness to lead our province. 

They can all muster exceptional teams to develop and communicate policy, to connect with voters, stakeholders and the Opposition Parties alike.  Best of all, these are professionals - servants of the people who are liberals of conscience, not convenience.  That means that whoever wins will have the full support of the others, presenting a political powerhouse dedicated to serving the best interests of Ontarians.

Of all these amazing potentials, though, it's definitely Sandra Pupatello that gets me the most excited.  In addition to being smart, savvy, caring yet tough when she needs to be, Pupatello is also larger than life.  You feel her presence; the air crackles when she walks into a room.  When she speaks to a constituent, or a stakeholder, or a potential partner, they feel like they are her whole world and get sucked in by her charisma (helped by the fact that she actually listens).  Watching her give a barn burner speech would be like attending a rock concert; Pupatello creates a community of experience that resonates, that lasts and, most importantly, that mobilizes.

It's why she was so effective as Minister of Economic Development and International Trade; she put a face on Ontario that enticed the world into investing in our province.  Even opponents who have been peeled by her respect her ability to connect with anyone, even political foes, as human beings.  This is why she was so effective in leading the Community and Social Services and Education Ministries - she actually cares about people.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will never forget when she walked over to Marilyn Churley in the Legislature and gave her a hug at the passage of the Adoption Information Disclosure Act.  She can be partisan when she needs to, but Pupatello is fundamentally about doing the right thing and will work with anyone to make that happen - and recognize their contributions in doing so, too.

Despite an obvious political crush, I'm not throwing my support, for what it's worth, behind Pupatello quite yet.  While ability, savvy and a knack for motivating and mobilizing teams are essential qualities in a winning candidate, this race isn't about the Leadership of the Liberal Party - that's just a conduit for helping to grow Ontario.  What will sell me is the plan.  I know that Pupatello understands the economics, the social policy, the education policy - and she can certainly pick up what she needs on health care, justice, First Nations and the environment, all of it, through osmosis and carefully-picked teams. 

What matters to me is how well she's able to connect the dots and weave a cohesive plan that hits all the right points simultaneously.  The pressures facing our economy are impacting families, which in turn impacts children and their education.  Equally, our social strains are placing an avoidable burden on health care and additional services and far too many communities of Ontarians are getting short shrift.  There are plenty of bright young social innovators out there with great ideas that can make our world a better place, but lack the business skills to build the right networks and sell those ideas to investors.  The nature of labour is changing, too - Ontario's businesses need the right knowledge and right tools to ensure our province gets ahead of the economic curve.

Ontario's success is built on a solid foundation:

- Strength through diversity

- An unwavering commitment to overcome difference and share opportunities; economic, cultural, etc.

- Life-long learning, available to everyone and accessible to individual learning requirements

- Universal health care that's there when you need it, but also the tools individuals need to stay healthy

- Responsible use of our natural resources that plans for generations, not just the next election

- A strong Justice system that focuses on remediation, not retribution

- Accessible, transparent, collaborative governance

The stronger our foundation is, the higher we can reach.  If Sandra Pupatello can pull a plan like that together, combined with her natural leadership qualities and the backing of a strong Ontario Liberal Party, it's not just my support she'll have earned - it'll be all Ontario's.

UPDATE -

“If we took this year out of the Liberal government, who do you think would be the cast? It would be Bentley, it would be Duncan, it would be Matthews,” she said, referring to Energy Minister Chris Bentley, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, and Health Minister Deb Matthews, who all took a pass on running.

“It would not be this cast. I get that.”

This saddens me.  When it becomes about winning, not achieving, you've lost.  We as Liberals and as Ontarians deserve better.

UPDATESTER -

Pupatello gave one of the humblest, most dedicated concession speeches I have ever heard, that ended right where she began in politics - here's our leader, here's the plan, lets make it happen.  It was inspirational  really.  It's good to have her back.