Yes, this was a deliberately misleading and self-serving, if entertaining, title. I can only guess as to the story behind
Liberal Who, just like anyone else. But, as you've come this far, here are my top three theories:
1) Liberal Who was a legitimate, if poorly considered, social media launch pad for a potential Federal Liberal leadership candidate.
This Social Media stuff isn't as easy as it looks. How do you become a #tellviceverything without falling into the trap of @vikileaks? How do you pull a
Call Me Maybe in planned fashion, yet avoid
puffin poop? Some eager beaver, either candidate or someone on their team, floats the idea of a viral lead-in to generate buzz. "Buzz!" said the candidate and their people. "Buzz is good, let's do that!"
Then it went off the rails; the response wasn't so hot. Instead of following through and A) defending the approach regardless, which is what most pols do when caught up, or B) owning up to
Liberal Who and saying, "this didn't work, but my policies will" and quickly recapturing focus in a positive way, someone blinked. That blink was followed up with a "if we pretend it was a prank and link to
Rick Mercer, this will all be quickly behind us."
Someone should have been paying closer attention to the emerging trends of social media - nothing gets left behind; where there's uncertainty, there're armchair pundits and opponents on both sides of the fence ready to dig until they have both mud and the person to throw it at.
2) Liberal Who was an oppositional attempt to steal the thunder of/put egg on the face of a potential Liberal candidate.
Think it's a little bit rich to assume somebody's opponent has gone to such lengths to embarrass a candidate or the Liberal Leadership race? You clearly aren't a political junkie. It's a sad reality that policy is generally seen as secondary to politics and, in politics as in war, anything goes. You have to win to govern, but winning comes at the expense of another Party, so every ounce of energy and thought must reflect how to win hearts and deflate your opponents. It's a fatal flaw in our current political system,
but that's another conversation.
It is entirely possible that opponents of a given candidate decided to use
Liberal Who as a way to undercut said candidate before they even got out the starting gate. Those could be potential leadership rivals, personal foes or supporters of another political team that get way too excited about
Nick Kouvalis. Either way, if you can tar your rival as ineffective, out of touch or focused on sizzle rather than steak, that's an effective way to lessen any threat they may possess.
Again, though, there was a website, there were emails - Liberal Who is forever imprinted on the Internet; if someone wants to find out who's behind it badly enough, they will. And that story will get out.
3) The least likely option, in my mind - some random person came up with Liberal Who because, why not?
There will always be those who like the idea of generating attention without actually wanting the responsibility and focus that comes with it. So, stuff like this DOES come up. Having said that, there is always a motive behind such anonymous attention plays. Vikileaks was an obvious one - the man behind that meme got to tar and feather an opponent without being tarred back. At least in theory.
Adam Carroll was outed for that campaign and ended up owning it on the national stage.
Twice, now, actually, so maybe the lesson is that you needn't worry. I hope not.
Who would have decided it would be fun to draw attention to a non-leader? Did they intend to go through with it, or was the eventual redirect to Rick Mercer a cop-out? Heck, were Mercer's people behind Liberal Who as a way to build traffic? Not the worst conspiracy theory, as these things go.
Whoever was behind Liberal Who, whatever their intention, they have generated enough interest that someone is going to follow through on the why. Where and when that happens, the mind(s) behind Liberal Who will have some xplainin' to do, so they better start thinking about how to deflect, redirect or answer the questions that are coming.
For everyone else, the lesson is one that more and more people are learning the hard way - if you're going to do something on the Internet, you will forever own it. This is a good thing, though, as it will encourage people to
think a bit further ahead before they act.
The truth will set you free, etc.
In the meantime, let the #cdnpoli social media guessing games continue. What's your theory?
Two governments trying to look tough and decisive are facing legal cases that are causing all kinds of political headaches. Things are way out of hand with Pussy Riot - a political statement/publicity stunt that should have merited at most a slap on the wrist and some discouraging words has seen musicians treated like terrorists and their children left as collateral damage. Where Omar Khadr is concerned, the jury of political opinion has largely condemned a man on hearsay; the facts don't matter when your emotions lead.
Which is a good thing, because there is much to question. We Western countries like to believe we are bastions of free speech and tolerance; some pundits have, in essence, told those who took offense to The Innocence of Muslims to calm down or get a life. Yet we are happy to vilify a child-soldier in the absence of fact and we are willing to lock up young women performers because they offended someone's religious sensibilities. Here in Canada, we even threaten activists whose opinion we disagree with and attack officials who try to shed light on uncomfortable facts.
