I think I’m close to figuring out where politicians keep losing us when it comes to the issues of the day and our lack of interest in them. Perhaps it is we the voters that just don’t get it.

Recently over dinner I discussed the prevalence and penetration of the news on today’s citizens. A family member, one who is, by profession, very news-savvy, made me aware that almost everyone he can think of in both his office and in his life doesn’t read the paper or read the news online. These are people ranging in age from roughly 27 to 40. I was baffled. Consider the idea that the majority of Canadians have no knowledge of the events that concern them, beyond the standing of their favourite NHL team. Besides being disappointed, think of what that means from a communications perspective and how one might speak to them without traditional media channels.

Aside from how one might speak to them, it got me thinking about what is being spoken and the depth to which topics are verbally expressed in public forums. When we hear politicians rambling on about things like the Afghan detainee scandal, relative strangers’ names like Richard Colvin, or complicated terms like “proroguing,” perhaps instead of rallying Canadians to their calls, they’re talking right over our heads.

Michael Ignatieff‘s recently penned Op-Ed in the Toronto Star sort of makes my point. As I clicked the link to this piece, I was thinking about how he might approach Canadians in his words. Would he leverage rallying cries or would he numb us with adjectives? On the subject of proroguing Parliament, he’s quick to bring up several important and complex issues which the government is failing us on, including case-specific names and details that most of us (even news-hardened folks like myself) haven’t heard about before. Where his argument is strongest is in his relatively plain language about the government not working. He focuses on the basic principles, not the nitty gritty details.

Identifying specific issues, names and debates with the interest of raising voters’ ire is likely over our heads and thus badly misses its intention. Republicans and Conservatives are always successful because they speak simply in order to engage their target audience – definitively simple people (older generations, rural constituents, conservative-minded folks). In fact, it seems to engage and galvanize more than their core; it attracts new members from other parties as well. Why? Because it’s relatable. It’s interpretable. It’s easy. And while these right-wing ideologues advocate for the good ol’ days and say “gosh” and “darnit,” more often than not our centrist and left-wing parties can be found confusing themselves with their own arguments.

Forgive me for calling us (the voter mass) stupid, but perhaps we are. The best way to motivate us might be to boil down arguments and forget the details, or at least just skim the surface. Sure our educated and experienced politicians should be aware of specificities and nuances, but perhaps they should only bring them up conversationally or in front of the media as necessary. When speaking to voters, the best way, it seems, to gain momentum is to use key words over and over and over again. For example, I like Ignatieff’s use of the word “regime” for the Conservative government. It would work in the long term to have Canadians identify Harper’s government as a regime (which it is) as a knee-jerk, first response, rather than continually reminded that he has prorogued parliament. I think most Canadians twitch and groan each time they hear that word these days.

A note to my dear politicians: Spend your time shaking hands and being seen in your ridings and communities instead of delving into the minute details of the day’s issues. We voters are far less aware than you think. Leave the big words, the detail and the complexity for the commissions. And Rex Murphy.

(Alberta Liberal MLA David Swann showing true character)

It’s important for our politicians (and similarly for businesses) to use Twitter. And the more random and candid it is, the better. Less of the corporate or communications-driven tweets that are not self-written, and more of the on-the-floor, on-the-road, “what I’m thinking now,” and “what that means to me” stuff.

As I read in a well-written communications and PR article recently, Twitter usage can impart a measure of sincerity, honesty and transparency, and allows us to better measure the character of the person or business in question. Sure, many corporate PR types would cringe at the idea of their client tweeting at random, but if the dog is tame, so to speak, and the leash can be removed and their personality revealed (and the person is indeed of mature substance) then great results can be achieved. It is the transparency that is inherently the most interesting to voters and of the greatest potential value to the politician. We get to see in real time what really is going on in their heads, their level of social and cerebral aptitude and the substance of their character, and they get to benefit from the swarming interest and loyalty of the fan base.

But it’s not always perfect. Some tweets or posts that unequivocally highlight inappropriateness are, though still of value to the voter (especially to note the level of idiocy and of parallel note, their constraint), a potential disaster for the politician. For example, as I brought up in a post a few months ago, we got to see the true colors of Alberta MLA Doug Elniski when he tweeted about needing help while amongst lesbians, and blogged about true “equality” and how young girls ought to attract men. (FYI – since my post I’ve been blocked from following his Twitter account.)

On the other hand, a capable person such as Alberta MLA and Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann keeps his own website, tweets for himself and his messages are mostly interesting, engaging and provide us with an idea of who he is. This connection is invaluable both to him and us. Voters strive to really know their politicians, and when they can’t make that connection, which happens 98% of the time these days, they become apathetic; a reality all too well known. But when they can, voters become loyal and word of mouth spreads.

It’s been said that those who follow celebrities or people of significance feel almost as if they know them. As though the term friend is less of a Twitter and Facebook-inspired label and more of a reality. Of course, when celebrities have the wit and the integrity to tweet responsibly for themselves, they are provided a feeling of connection with their fans in a controlled and thus enjoyable environment. What could be better than that? But when a politician is an idiot and shows it on Twitter, we are still better for it. That said, we are quick to see their controllers (Disney in the case of Miley Cyrus, and the Alberta Conservative Party in the case of Doug Elniski) cut off all connection to the real world, thus casting them back into the noxious syrup of controlled PR, media and spin.

Political types are known for their door knocking strategies during campaign time, where they meet constituents and discuss the issues of the day. Twitter and other social media, when employed candidly, accomplish this task in exponential fashion. Imagine door knocking to 10,000 people at once. Sure they’re not all constituents, but many would be, and the practice goes a long way towards displaying the candour and sometimes brutal truth of those who profess to represent us in government. Parties should spend less time protecting their members from the public, and instead teach them how to behave in public. Or, perhaps in the case of Doug Elniski, find alternative representation.

photo: Globe and Mail (www.globeandmail.com)

Only because it makes me shake my head and sigh in both frustration and astonishment do I relish the opportunity to speak about how Stephen Harper sung and poked at the piano at the National Arts Centre gala last week. Again, here we have Canadians and national media marvelling at a carefully orchestrated (no pun intended) PR tactic. Amazingly, it works.

What are we, a herd of sheep? Politicians think so. And we know that. Yet it continues.

Last week, Stephen Harper took an opportunity to sit behind a piano at Canada’s NAC gala to play and sing a Beetles’ tune. Frankly, I don’t care that he did well, or “invited us into his personality” or whatever. It’s all a sham anyway; it’s all calculated and planned, and considered, and surely debated about before he gets up there and does it. “Would it reflect positively?” “What would it mean in the polls?” “What if he sings poorly?” I’m sorry to be so blunt, but those of you that think this was spontaneous, or even last-minute, without the collaborative thoughts of his aides, are fools.

I’m not sure what upsets me more about this: the fact that he has the gaul to sing for an enthusiastic arts crowd and stand in front of artists who are forced to smile, applaud and share space with him despite the fact that this is the same PM who’s cut more than $45 million in arts funding just in the last year (and called arts supporters “elitists”); or the fact that the audience, who are largely enormous benefactors of the arts industry or are otherwise engaged in the arts community, would actually give him a standing ovation?

Thus, my frustration is mired in either the arrogant and conniving false imagery the Prime Minister is perpetrating, or the ignorant and abstinent idiocy of the crowd. Bravo to those who did not stand or applaud for him. Shame on him and his staff for playing the orchestra and crowd like puppets for their own political gain.

It’s a self-perpetuating vicious circle that we exist within: Canadians aren’t involved nor care about politics, thus our politicians play us for fools. Our politicians play us for fools because we aren’t involved nor care about politics. Meanwhile, whichever party can muster up enough support to earn a minority can take over parliament, blame the opposition for a lack of progress, and quietly pass legislation that impacts us greatly over the long term. Sometimes the disconnect between the Canadian public and politics gives me the most acute of frustrations – very nearly a feeling of hopelessness. COME ON PEOPLE.

In entering what appears to be a fall election, the immediate requirement of the Liberal Party of Canada is going to be to sell Canadians on the fact that we need an election. This must not be understated nor undersold. Just as the party and Michael Ignatieff need to work to convince a majority of Canadians that they are the correct choice, they must first convince a majority of Canadians that they need to get out and vote.

Making a case for calling an election is the principle matter at hand, not only because the Liberals want to win and want to take advantage of relatively strong polling numbers, but because if an election is called, it is the Liberals who are the perpetrators and they’ll need to vindicate themselves for forcing an election. If they can’t convince Canadians that such action is required, they’ll have an impossible task of convincing Canadians that they should receive their vote. On the other side of the debate, Stephen Harper will be working with his team to convince Canadians that there is no need for an election, that an election now is a waste of money, effort and resources, and finally, within the guise of this unfounded election, clearly he is the wisest choice; in that order.

‘Need’ has been poorly conveyed in each of the last several elections – clearly indicated by lackluster voter turnout. Politicians repent that they wish Canadians would be more engaged politically, but it is my opinion that the interest and energy is there, if only they felt the need.  Quebeckers are a good example of this attitude: if an issue really gets to them (whether belligerent Conservative politicians taking them for granted, or matters of distinct cultures or sovereignty) they passionately show up in droves and unequivocally make their opinions known. If an issue is absent from a debate, the sentiment is almost the opposite – one of resentment. And it is widespread resentment that the Conservatives have leveraged as a platform from which to attack wasteful spending from otherwise opportunistic opposition parties in the past.

If the Liberals can effectively convince Canadians that there needs to be an election; that another month of Harper would be inherently bad and detrimental to the country; then I think the next step of selling the party and its leader as the wise choice to replace him would be a piece of cake.

Again, as with my previous posts, the emphasis on making a successful case for calling an election falls on clarity and sound argument. There can be no mistake or confusion on calling Harper out for being a dangerous politician who is directing our country towards irreparable economic damage and does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. The Liberals have already done a fair job of crying foul over stimulus spending, but within the framework of a non-confidence vote in Parliament, that rhetoric must be shifted into high gear. There must be examples, sound bytes, quotes, and otherwise evidence to help earn the support of the entire Liberal caucus, the other opposition parties, the media (to help frame the debate) and finally, voting Canadians.

In some circumstances the performance of the sitting prime minister and his party provide all the ammo necessary to bolster voter support – such as in the United States with George W. Bush’s performance and subsequently Barack Obama’s victory; though such obvious malpractice is not often apparent in Canadian politics. Not since Paul Martin and the sponsorship scandal, anyway. Thus, it is incumbent on the federal Liberals to convince Canadians that the need is there – that the requirement of an election is valid and reasonable.

Let’s see how this all transpires.

I’m noticing how both US President Barack Obama and Canadian Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff are facing communications challenges these days. The tougher reality is that while advancing policy initiatives or rebuilding a brand are difficult to begin with, neither politician’s camp is helping their own cause.

Where to begin….

Barack Obama: US Health Care Reform

Many of you are probably aware that Barack Obama is having the carpet pulled out from under him regarding healthcare reform. Aggressive and vitriolic conservative propaganda (surely supported if not funded by the insurance companies who have plenty to lose) have begun convincing Americans that Obama’s plan is to “socialize” heath care, strip choice from each individual and raise taxes. In fact none of these arguments are true, but as much of a fan of his as I am, it must be said that he is doing an incredibly poor job of selling his argument. This is quite odd, given he is the president amongst presidents known for his communications skills, clarity and leveraging mass media techniques; yet his messages on health care reform have been cloudy, convoluted and confusing, easily suppressed and overtaken by a tack-sharp, straight-forward and succinct counter from the Republicans and special interest groups. It is not unexpected then, to witness the debate wandering away from Obama’s focused subject matter and rather alarmingly threatening his early success, approval ratings and possible legacy.

The Republican message has operated on these principles:

- Obama health care will limit the choices Americans have to receive excellent medical service

- In adding coverage for 50 million uninsured Americans, there is no way to pay for this reform other than to raise taxes

- Obama’s publicly funded health care plan is akin to socialism – socialized medicine strips Americans of their very civil liberties and freedom of choice

The Republicans are effectively selling their message point for point with the same predictable tact and efficiency that every American has become accustomed to. Unfortunately, the Democrats, despite holding the House, the Senate and the Presidency, are falling into the same trap of being self-effacing and clumsy. They fail to understand or be convinced of their own message, let alone sell it abroad.

All it would take for Obama to make his point and earn wide-spread support for his reform is to get down to the facts of the matter, clarify his message and essentially fight fire with fire. Steady messages should be forthright and even slightly aggressive:

- Every insured American is being ripped off by for-profit insurance companies

- Uninsured Americans are costing insured Americans even more because they lack coverage but still access medical care

- The government’s only control in this plan is to provide an all-access pass to health care – beyond that, every choice is up to the patient and their doctor

Heck, use keywords and marketing: recovery, solution, escape, relief, cure, freedom, democratic, constitutional… Know your audience. Know your media. Know your opponents. Clarify your message. Determine your talking points. Keep them simple. Keep everyone on message and honest. Defeat line by line your opponents’ arguments. Public relations 101.

Simple messages make for great headlines. Stop using confusing examples, big words and vague and obtrusive arguments. Say it like this: “America: each of you are spending more to receive less. You are being ripped off. I have the solution that will cost you less and get you more. I have a low-cost plan to cure America of its health care needs.” Enough said.

The Democrats have until now been convoluted and uninterpretable – to the extent that they’re tripping over themselves. In less than a week, press secretary Robert Biggs said one thing, which differed from House speaker Nancy Pelosi, which again differed from Obama himself. Seriously? Even supporters of the plan have developed a twitch. Regardless of the quality of the program, if you can’t get your facts straight, how can anyone trust you to deliver?

The fact of the matter is that when both sides of any argument are equally prepared and able to present their case, the more appreciable party or subject line should win every time. And this is what confounds me every time Republicans win anything. If Americans have been convinced to support Republicans on anything – from state propositions to presidents – it is because either a) the Republicans do a better job of selling their argument, or b) Americans actually choose the Republican message. I have a hard time believing the latter – that a majority of Americans are conservative. Sure there are certain states, but not the whole country. Thus, when they get spanked by someone like George W. Bush, the Democrats should take that as a literal slap in the face. It’s punishment for having incompetently presented a viable alternative.

Time and time again, we here in Canada have watched the Democrats defeat themselves by falling into Republican traps – whether it was the John Kerry Vietnam Swift Boat scandal (which was entirely irrelevant to the election, but deflected the argument away from Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, failed domestic programs and hugely wasteful spending) or this, Obama’s “Death Camp” health care reform. Frankly, the Republicans shouldn’t have a leg to stand on, but they seem to be immensely more talented, voracious, and skilled debaters. I can only imagine how refined they are behind the scenes at selling their points to the media and to interest groups.

Michael Ignatieff: His Brand And That Of His Party

The growing problem Canadian Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is facing is emblematic of the American president’s. While a majority of Canadians support Ignatieff’s sound character and liberal ideology, his efforts to establish himself and garner support for his renewed party are starting to be deflected or otherwise contradicted by his opposition. Accordingly, Canadians are becoming confused by what is being presented to them.

In Ignatieff’s case, we’re talking about his image and reputation (his brand) and the legitimization of the revamped Liberal Party. The Liberals are for some reason or another allowing the governing Conservatives complete opportunity to pounce on their leader’s image and that of his party. Here we have a very capable person and party with moderate and responsible views, yet Conservative arguments reduce both Ignatieff and the Liberals down to staunch aristocratic attitudes and vague (and therefore untrustworthy) policies.

While it is to be expected that the Conservative attack plan would be to strike fear into people thinking of voting Liberal, what is odd is that the Liberals themselves are doing little to counter the argument. And as long as the debate lingers, voters start to legitimize and rationalize Conservative attacks. The portrayals begin to stick. This is what makes otherwise unappetizing attack ads successful: they hold no bearing unless the receiving party does nothing to refute them. If an attack remains undefended, even on grounds of legitimacy, at least some of the intended damage is done. Thus, when an election comes around, the argument becomes, for example, less about recession spending, employment insurance and corporate tax breaks, and more about rebuking the caricature the Conservatives have created regarding Ignatieff.

Because conservatives (Republicans) operate from a “status quo” platform and liberals (or Democrats) operate from an “ideas” platform, the conservatives have a distinct advantage when discussing policy or change, because their argument is “why.” To their advantage is the familiar. While liberals must argue why change is good or necessary, all conservatives have to do is refer to what is known and what is working. When that isn’t enough, they escalate to why liberal ideas won’t work as promised or aren’t sound or sufficient in the first place. Inherently, the foundation of conservative thinking is lowest-common-denominator and status quo. By their nature they are satisfied with less – less control, less change, less interference. Liberal thinking is about progression, change and development. Therefore, the natural conservative response to a liberal plan exudes a fear of the unknown. And they prey upon these subconscious characteristics in every voter.

What both Michael Ignatieff and Barack Obama would benefit from immediately, is getting back down to basics with voters. They ought to clarify their message, deflect any unnecessary tangents and define the arguments that will achieve success. Now that both men have traveled a fair distance down a road of disrepair (thanks to their opposition), they need to take the extra steps of bringing their voter base back to an open-minded equilibrium. This might mean direct contact – town halls – since speaking to people are strengths of both men. Obama is already doing this to a limited extent, but I’m talking campaign-style and in hostile territory. They need to get their message across (unadulterated) and generate two-way conversations with voters. Hear what they have to say. This will get people talking about them and telling their friends about them.

Once they’re back on a level playing field with voters, all it really comes down to is ensuring their arguments make sense, are succinct and satisfy a need. Reality and the common voter favor moderate and centrist politicians. Only in allowing the debate to shift away from legitimate topics can conservative groups win, yet it happens far more often than it should.

Representing the provincial riding of Fort McMurray, Alberta MLA Guy Boutilier was until this past Friday a member of the provincial conservative party and sat on the treasury board – two esteemed positions, as far as provincial politics are concerned. He was fired this past Friday afternoon – yep, on a Friday – over the phone no less, by Premier Ed “Can’t Stomach Dissent” Stelmach. Reason? For openly objecting to funding delays from the province for extended health care and long term assisted living facilities in his riding, which has none to begin with (article). According to Boutilier on CBC Calgary‘s The Eyeopener this morning, he wasn’t even warned, questioned or granted an opportunity to plead his case. “Iron Overalls” Ed Stelmach called him to say, “he was no longer welcome in caucus.”

Funny, this government. It’s quite baffling how only a couple of weeks ago, folks like Doug Elniski could make idiotic public comments about girls at car washes or make embarrassing headlines as he provided unadulterated views on straightening out women who advocate for gender equality, but dare anyone raise eyebrows over legitimate concerns or real issues… Elniski barely had his hand slapped – Stelmach said he spoke with him and that his time-served headlines were punishment enough – and yet Boutilier got canned without discussion, on the phone, on a Friday afternoon. Just like that.

I have a feeling that the Alberta Liberals are tempted to woo this seat over to their ranks. For one, it’s a seat in the legislature, not to mention a riding with perpetual terrible voter turnouts. Two, it’s a newly independent politician who was fired for standing up for his constituents and their well beings. I’d consider that Boutilier will become a local hero with his voter base and stands a great chance of winning re-election. Third, the issue at hand (long term care and assisted living) is a topic that resonates with the provincial Liberal agenda. For a while now, they’ve championed being in touch with the majority of Albertans and the real issues they face in this tough economy. The Conservatives are pro business and pro regression. Anything to do with social services or lending a hand is well beyond their means and ideology. It seems that this once-blue seat turned pink and is now red, meaning it is ripe for the picking.