No One Likes Attack Ads, Except For Those Using Them

Not surprisingly, a survey done by the Globe and Mail concludes that the 'Just Visiting' ads the Conservative Party has been running about Michael Ignatieff are a "negative sum game." According to 600 Canadians from four different zones across Canada, 85 percent say politicians should work together rather than attacking one another, 79 percent believe attack ads do harm (doesn't say to whom or what), and 73 percent say they lead to distrust of politicians. None of this is news since surveys of this type pretty much always reveal these kinds of results.

The problem though, is that when people go to the ballot box, they have to vote for a politician whether they trust any of them or not, whether they think their ads do harm or not, and whether they are working together or attacking one another. These ads may drive many away from the ballot box, but that doesn't change the calculus for getting elected unless everyone who stays away are the supporters of one party. The truth is that attack ads work. An uncommitted voter (someone who doesn't consistently commit to a party) whose knowledge of Ignatieff is only what the Conservatives have told them - which can be many since 80 percent of Canadians don't follow politics on a regular basis, but probably close to 100 percent watch TV, and as many as 70 percent of Canadians are uncommitted voters - is likely to favour the Conservatives due to the mistrust engendered toward Ignatieff.

Political strategists and psychologists know this, as made clear in books like Warren Kinsella's The War Room and Drew Westen's The Political Brain. The 'Not A Leader' ads about Stephane Dion proved it just ten months ago. Of course, the ads have to be well-done and effective, which means finding the right message at the right time. The Liberals learned this when the 'Secret Agenda' ads against Harper worked in 2004 and failed miserably in 2006. Included in the right messaging is not crossing a line into personal attacks or misrepresentations, such as the Ontario Liberals learned in their attacks on Cherie DiNovo in a 2006 by-election.

Tom Flanagan, a political strategist, essentially encouraged negative ads in a recent column. Bruce Anderson objected, citing Obama's campaign as an example of how positive campaigning is the way to go and raising other examples of how negativity can hurt politicians (such as Harper's attack on Ignatieff at the G8 meeting last week). It's true that only negative messaging will not be effective, you have to offer a positive vision of your own to contrast the negative (something Harper routinely fails at which helps to explain why all his attack ads fail to get him to the golden prize of a majority). Westen says a candidate has to tell a story, complete with a good guy (him or herself) and a bad guy (the opponent). Obama did this very well, constantly contrasting his 'yes we can' message of hope with constant criticism of the failed policies of the Republicans and McCain's links to those policies - to say Obama only went positive is to ignore half the content of all his speeches.

The only way to get rid of attack ads is to punish parties for them, and that's not likely to happen since elections are pragmatic and not philosophical - as much as we like to talk about them as if they are. The concluding paragraph of the G&M article is a question: "When it comes to deciding on this type of advertising, shouldn't the cost to Canadians' views of the political process and their civic life be a politician's number one concern?" Well, the answer to this is no, the politician's main concern is getting elected, followed by advancing their agenda, vision, or whatever motives they had for gaining power, which includes the continuance of their getting elected. Until we, as the electorate, punish those who pursue power through negativity, rather than just saying we don't like it, then candidates have no incentive to change tactics.

I'll leave you with this conversation from John Travolta's character, Gov. Jack Stanton, in the movie Primary Colors, who is talking to his advisor, Henry Burton, who has become disillusioned by the nasty tactics Stanton has used.

Stanton: This is hardball. Do you mean you just realized that and can't handle it? I know you better than that. This is it, Henry. This is the price you pay to lead. You don't think Lincoln was a whore before he was president? He had to tell his stories and smile his back-country grin. He did that so one day he'd have the opportunity to stand before the nation and appeal to our better nature. That's where the bullshit stops. That's what it's all about. Making the most of it, doing it the right way. You know that there are plenty of people in this game who don't think that way. They'll sell their souls, lie to people, divide them, play on their fears, for nothing. Just for the prize.

Henry: I don't care. I'm sorry, but I'm not comparing the players. I don't like the game. I want to work for something small, like voter registration.

Stanton: And after that, who do they vote for? Who can do this better than me? Is there anyone else who can win this election? Who'd do more for people than I would? Who'd think about the folks I care about? ... We worked so hard together to get here. It's there for us now. We can do incredible things. We can change this whole country. I'm going to win this. And when I do, we' re going to make history.

On The Nature of Change and Consensus

The article in yesterday’s Toronto Star, “Party’s Over for Today’s Progressive Conservatives,” by Arthur Haberman reminds me of a couple of blog posts I’d drafted awhile ago but never finished off. The first had to do with the Third Way and centrism, while the second was in praise of moderation and incrementalism. Since they’re thematically linked I’m going to cover them both in this post. The summary is that I favour progressive yet incremental change, as did classic and progressive conservatives, in place of radical or sudden change. However achieving change is not about pursuing a particular idealism, it’s about the competition and collaboration of differing ideals to find a centrist and effective course of change. In today’s time of partisan bickering and the need for wide-scale solutions to myriads of problems, the combination of prudent, incremental changes achieved through centrist positions will help us solve the short term problems and position us best for the long term.

Haberman decries the loss of Progressives within the Conservative ranks in Canada, and in doing so notes “radical politics – on the right or the left – can destroy the fabric of society and leave little in its place. Progressive Conservatives like to make a series of small adjustments that over time turn out to be large but do not create chaos. As Edmund Burke said: "At once to preserve and reform" is the way to proceed.” I’m inclined to agree this is a Progressive Conservative trait and one that I support. In my experience this is far more productive and better for society than taking great leaps, especially leaps into the unknown.

Edmund Burke was a curious figure in history – a voice of conservatism and moderation that flew in the face of the strong winds of modernity. In opposing the French Revolution he said:

“When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer. Europe, undoubtedly, taken in a mass, was in a flourishing condition the day on which your revolution was completed. How much of that prosperous state was owing to the spirit of our old manners and opinions is not easy to say; but as such causes cannot be indifferent in their operation, we must presume that on the whole their operation was beneficial.”
(link)

Burke’s warning not to throw the baby out with the bathwater reminds us that in our complex world changing too much at once can cause us to lose our way from the things that worked; and change things to a degree that we can’t find our way back to a reasonable place of stability (just the way it works for scientists in controlled experiments). To Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire and Revolutionaries such as Thomas Paine, Burke was a stick in the mud; someone who wanted to stop the progress of man and the pursuit of freedom from tyranny. Certainly at the time it would be easy to see Burke this way; yet he wasn’t opposed to change, he was just opposed to changing everything at once as the French Revolution sought.

Conservatives in Canada today, without their progressive side, are seeking a program of radical change. Mike Harris was an ‘all at once’ change agent and threw Ontario into chaos and lost productivity, damaging a generation of students while trying to reform education funding and municipalities. I suspect Harper would like to be more radical but has been counselled, by the likes of Tom Flanagan, to take a more gradual approach. In the US, Barack Obama appears to be pursuing his own aggressive agenda to change education, health care and the role of government over a very short time. It can be argued he must act quickly to take advantage of the current window of opportunity his historic win has provided, but history would caution against it.

Think of any major change in society or in your own life that happened over a short period of time. Whether they worked out in the long run or not, what is likely is there was a period of disruption and adjustment that brought about little progress, perhaps even retreat, and was marked with anxiety, stress or other consequences that could have resulted in long term, even permanent detrimental effects. Such impacts are notorious in business, where hasty takeovers, mergers and restructuring of large companies offset any benefits with elevated levels of confusion, stress, staff turnover and lengthy periods of poor productivity and/or weak performance.

Of course, the pace and extent of change and the related degree of success or disruption associated with that change can vary depending on the people involved and the surrounding circumstances. Some people handle change very well and adjust quickly, while others can be debilitated and take years to adjust. When it comes to public policy and governing, it’s pretty rare a populace can adjust very quickly.

The current economic troubles came on relatively quickly and strongly, and in general we have demanded equivalent responses. However, the responses in many respects have not marked much of a change but rather a re-establishment of past manoeuvres developed during and after the depression. There’s been little, if anything, the governments of the world have done that we haven’t seen before or weren’t already doing but on a lesser scale. This doesn’t mean change isn’t needed though, it certainly is needed, so the question arrives on how that change is managed and how the decisions are made around what changes should be done.

I believe that Bill Clinton was one of the most successful presidents in US history. While he certainly wasn’t perfect, he did oversee unprecedented levels of prosperity, growth and stability both domestically and internationally. Critics of his policy record tend to say he reached too lows and subsequently accomplished too little. Part of this was because of the strong Republican Congress that opposed him, but it was also because he was an adherent of moderate, incremental and consensus-based change. His ideology was branded the Third Way and is something I’d like to see more of as we move forward with future change agendas.

The concept of Third Way politics is that of the middle road between capitalism and socialism – a centrism that synthesizes left and right wing viewpoints (understanding that both are relative to place and time) and develops consensus decisions. It features streamlined government that uses strategic policies to empower people for growth while ensuring equal opportunity and assistance for the disadvantaged. In other words, not the bureaucratic nanny state of the left nor the laissez-faire government of the right, but a balance between the two. This may seem familiar to Canadians because it is consistent with how the country has been governed for most of its history whether under Liberal or (Progressive) Conservative governments.

The Republican rule in the US for the past eight years, Tony Blair’s support thereof and the rise of socialist governments in South America suggest the Third Way was rejected and therefore a failure, but this is hard to reconcile. Markets and economies stayed strong well after the changes of government and were brought down not by Third Way policies but by Economic Black Swans (9/11) and the failed, one-sided policies of the Republicans. Others have suggested the Third Way was just a covert way for the left to gain legitimacy for failed socialist policies, but this is a typical US response to any suggestion of active government.

Joseph Heath’s new book, Filthy Lucre, reveals the folly of much of the right/left approach to economics and argues for the need to take a more nuanced and pragmatic approach. However his co-author for Rebel Sell (a highly recommended read), Andrew Potter, has argued against centrism as a means of governance. His argument is that nothing gets done if political opponents aren’t forcefully pulling in their own directions – or that oppositional government is skewed if one side seeks consensus while the other pulls hard (i.e. the consensus will settle in the direction of the one pulling hard). Whether this happened to Clinton in the face of the hard right is debatable since the essence of the Third Way was to balance between left and right and, while many concessions were made to the right, many progressive changes were made that led to balanced budgets and a strengthening of the low-income classes. Potter is concerned Obama will be pulled to the right in his pursuit of a post-partisan Washington. I think Potter relented a little as Obama’s approach was clarified as more of a ‘constructive collegiality’ rather than a ‘compromise at any cost’ approach.

However, Potter’s assertions against centrism made me think twice about my centrist philosophy. Is centrism viable? Yes. In the political realm, policy is developed through the competition of ideas and the negotiation of policies through the legislative process. It is a natural arena of conflict. Conflict has 5 means of resolution (per the Thomas-Kilmann model) as shown in this diagram:

As is evident, there is a dependency on the assertiveness and cooperativeness of each party. Potter suggests that politics necessarily falls into the highly assertive and uncooperative region of competition, and anyone unwilling to compete is doing a disservice to the governance of the nation. However, to pursue compromise or collaboration still requires healthy levels of assertiveness. Collaboration is the ideal, but as we know the other side isn’t always a willing collaborator, and any compromise requires less assertiveness and more cooperation from the opponent. Therefore taking a centrist position puts oneself in the middle to upper-right regions (somewhere between compromise and collaboration), and the actions of the opponent decides whether you end up in the upper-left or middle result (between compromise and competition). Usually the nature of the conflict and the stakes involved in the result determine the likely result.

Obama repeatedly shows how the centrist position can be staked out. He does this through ‘here and now’ feedback by calling out his opponents on their uncooperative and overly assertive approach. Instead of engaging in unproductive dialogue with an uncooperative opponent, he switches focus to the nature of the dialogue. He does not open himself to non-assertiveness; he clearly indicates he is in the upper half of the conflict model. There are many examples, but one of my favourites comes from his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention: “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.” Let’s call this “assertive centrism.”

In Canada, we’ve wasted the past three years with highly assertive, highly uncooperative conflict resolution (in most cases the Liberals have been pushed into the lower half of the model due to their own issues unrelated to the merits of each debate). Canada has stalled and the challenges of a changing economy, global dynamics and pressing issues such as the environment are going unaddressed. We need to build on the many good things Canada has developed over our history; we need “our old manners and opinions.” We also need change, but not a program of radical change. Haberman is right, we need Progressive Conservatives, but we also need Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and the many nuanced positions in between. We need centrist and moderate ideas that can move us forward in progressive yet manageable ways in the Burkian model. One would think a minority parliament would be the perfect environment to develop a centrist, incremental approach to solution-building, but when one party refuses to climb down the assertive side of the conflict resolution model, it’s Canada that loses.

In Toronto, the Union's Arguments Don't Smell Right

This article sums up the public unions’ arguments against the City of Toronto in the current strike. Basically, it argues that people are blaming unions for the economic woes of the world instead of the greedy capitalists that have brought us all to our knees. Instead, the writer suggests, we should be thanking unions for fighting the good fight.

This article explains why most of the city’s residents are not on their side. When people are losing their jobs and tax money is flowing out like water over Niagara Falls, it’s hard to side with people fighting to keep perks that are unimaginable in private-sector jobs and are being fought for using the public’s services as a bartering chip.

But of course, things are never so simple. This isn’t about the lack of appreciation for unions or an opportunistic ploy by the City to drive down public sector wages and benefits. It’s about dealing with a new era of economic realities. Whether bankable sick days are fair or not is not the question; the question is whether we, as a City, can afford such perks. The City of Toronto has been poor for a very long time and services, investments and the quality of life have been in decline. That’s not to say there haven’t been some positives, but they’ve been inadequate in the face of the City’s growing challenges.

Debates between unions, whether it’s public sector or private, and employers are rarely approached the way they should. Too often it’s a negotiation between the union vying for all it can (whether it’s saving what they’ve won previously or pushing for more) and the employer pushing the opposite. These approaches are understandable but not very effective for everyone involved. First and foremost employers and unions must view themselves for what they are: parts of a larger whole, of which the success of the whole is the vehicle for achieving what both sides want.

It seems rather obvious to me that a successful company depends on happy and productive employees, so there’s not much incentive to take advantage of them. Maybe that was the case a hundred years ago but we’ve come a long way since then, and mostly because of unions. Unions helped establish a balance that was sorely needed and was much to the benefit of the economy as a whole. It’s balance that’s the essential ingredient, and when the company or City starts to struggle, the two sides should work together to form a plan that works for both – it’s still negotiation, but with an eye on a mutual prize which is an easier goal.

When unions complain that they didn’t cause the recession and shouldn’t have to pay for the mistakes of greedy capitalists and authors of massive fraud, they’re completely missing the point. It may not seem fair but, for the workers of Chrysler or GM, for example, it doesn’t mean much when the enterprise goes down the tube. For the public unions of Toronto, the causes of the economic problems may have been someone else’s fault, but the fact is the City’s revenues are down and we, as a City, cannot afford to pay out the same level of perks. I would argue that a healthier balance has been needed for some time regardless of the economic conditions that surround the current impasse, but whatever reasons have gotten us here a new economic relationship is needed for the health of our governance.

The public sector is a tricky game, since any benefits to workers are paid with taxpayer money. It should stand to reason that if the public is satisfied with the services they’re getting for their money, then there’s peace in the land. While Conservatives do all they can to undermine the role of government, Canadians in general are willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure drivable roads, tidy parks, a helpful selection of public services and dependable safety nets, and a decent livelihood for those who work to deliver those things. When public opinion reaches a five to one opposition against the union (as the article supporting unions acknowledges), then clearly things are not in a balanced position.

As mentioned here, the union is not likely to meet a more favourable mayor, so if they’re ever going to strike a deal that helps the City balance its budget and keeps as much of the workers’ perks as possible, this is likely the time. But as usual the view is not on the whole, it’s only the benefit of their part, and for now they’re mostly on their own.