I thought about titling this post “F*&$ This” in reference to the pathetic indifference I’ve had for this blog in the last two months. I’ve moved to a new city, ripe with new things to talk about, yet, like an un-exercised muscle, new routines have been built in spite of this blog and it is atrophying.

But instead of writing it off or ignoring consequence, I thought I should re-evaluate what I talk about on here and start fresh. Indeed, my new life has brought new interests. My new job has brought new interests too.

What matters to me enough to write about it? I think the list is still largely comprised of the environment, wine, politics, social media, public relations, marketing, my life, photography, travel and current events. Wine is playing a bigger role in my life now, what with my new job and all. I’m tasting a lot more (tasting being the formal word for drinking in smaller volumes in less social settings and often spitting), so there’s potential that there will be more wine notes posted on here. I think, though, where most of my frustration comes from is in having a lot to say, but little patience to actually type it all out. And then edit it. So perhaps my posts should become shorter. I like my longer posts; they give me an opportunity to write out everything that I am thinking, but I’m becoming increasingly daunted by the prospect of writing a long post and therefore it inhibits me from even beginning.

I’ve been out taking more pictures recently. Last week, two walks with my wife – to Queen Elisabeth Park near our house and to Granville Island – produced some nice shots, which I am eager to share. These should spur me on to more entries as well. Following the lead of my friend Extrametrical, I may come to create posts that are entirely photographic; filling holes left by my not wanting to write something. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and that’s about average for my blog posts.

Lately I’ve found myself staying up late reading (a fact that unto itself blows my wife away and would my parents as well). I’m nearly done a wonderful book about the campaign strategy behind Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency of the United States. The book, The Audacity To Win, is by David Plouffe, long-time political strategist and PR/Marketing/Communications director, who managed Obama’s Democratic nomination and presidential campaign. Plouffe and his business partner and friend David Axelrod are widely considered to be the brain trust behind the Obama campaign, and the reason why he not only won the election, but more importantly defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries. They did so by developing a grassroots fundraising and volunteer base the scope and size of which had never been seen before in history. What’s more, they raised nearly a billion dollars in less than two years, and mostly from an accumulation of small donations under $100. It was also a campaign that was largely won by leveraging social media and the internet. It’s a great book. Although largely focused on politics and the spectrum of the American electoral system, it has principles which are largely interchangeable with many business practices outside of politics: building a team, communications and PR via social media and YouTube, fundraising and empowering volunteers. Ultimately, it is a story about the convergence of a country that was ready for change, the vision and leadership of Obama, and a well-oiled and expert team of directors and enablers that included Plouffe and Axelrod. I think my favourite political party – the Federal Liberal Party of Canada – would be well served to read it and perhaps hire one of these gentlemen as a consultant (even though they’re now active to varying degrees within the Obama administration). Canada has been pining for a change – for a leader and a vision – for just as long and with similar exasperation.

I was thinking of starting my last post with something like, “please excuse me for not posting for a week, as I decided to prorogue my blog. I felt it necessary to reset it, as it were; put it on pause; recalibrate it. I needed the time to take account of my recent posts and strategize my forthcoming ideas.” Meanwhile, you, dear readers, forget what I had most recently written about, gone on with your daily lives, and God willing, when I finally returned, you were there waiting with willingness.

But then it occurred to me that the similarity was rather weak, because in contrast to me shutting down my blog for a period of time, the Government of Canada doesn’t really care if its citizens take note of its departure or return to business. As I’ve said bef ore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that both the business and recent prorogation of Canada’s Parliament are irrelevant to Canadians. We hardly think they’re working when they are, so why do we care if they’re working at all? And remember, I told you that Canadians in general are easily confused and distracted.

Squirrel!

A few weeks ago, a motivated online group of Canadians organized protests against the prorogation of parliament which were held in 60-odd locations across Canada this past Saturday. For a while I considered attending the one in south Calgary, at the Prime Minister’s constituency office (that is closed on weekends). I even threatened as much on my Facebook page. But then I recalled my experience at the only protest I have ever actually attended – the George W. Bush visit to Calgary in March, 2009. I considered how weird it was, what with the plethora of right-wing, ultra-conservative business people who paid to hear him, and the discombobulated circus of disheveled, left-wing hippies yelling at them in opposition. The loudest protesters didn’t have a clear message; signs bore messages ranging from war-monger, to odd stories about Cubans kidnapped in the 60′s. Some were there with the sole intention of being arrested, in order to make some sort of statement. Frankly, it was embarrassing, and it entirely diluted the effort of the protest in the first place, in my opinion.

The movement behind the protests was an interesting one. I think it was a good idea for the most part. Conceptually, anyway. And it’s important to separate the movement from the protests, in order to identify the two camps of thought involved. The movement, known as “Canadians Against the Prorogation of Parliament” was begun on Facebook, as a social media rallying point for Canadians to voice their displeasure. This was a low-involvement, small investment sort of participation for Canadians – we were able to add our name to a cause, and – more than a petition – actually engage each other. We were able to discuss the issue and draw more people into the fray. It grew into a mass of some 218,000 Canadians, all upset to some degree with the government’s decision to take a break. The movement involved the traditional opposition types – card-carrying members of the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, but also, interestingly, Conservatives who expected more from their leaders. This was truly a transcendental populous. And because of this diversity, but also the unknown nature of a social media movement, the media were picking up on it like crazy. They didn’t know what the movement meant, nor what it was capable of, and because of that it was newsworthy.

But moving from a cozy social-media discussion into a series of protests (in mid-January, mind you) was probably too great a leap for many of those who signed up to the Facebook page. Firstly, because the organizers were asking people to get off their computers, leave their house and routines and stand outside en masse on a wintery Saturday afternoon. The separation of social media engagement and physical protestation is quite polar, and I’m sure the organizers feared that no one would show up. If the next move of the group was to begin a letter-writing campaign to each person’s own Member of Parliament, which is, perhaps a more natural mobilization of a social media cause, then this exercise might have had more participation and impact.

Secondly, and more importantly in my opinion, transgressing from the new idea of mustering mass support via social media engagement to the tired act of physical protest rendered the movement less useful because it diverted attention and emphasis from a new and exciting media platform to an old, all-too-familiar and somewhat abused one. The organizers had an opportunity to do something different; to speak to political leaders from a more intimate (in voters’ words) and less predictable (how big could this grow?) stage; one where they, their message and their legion would be perceived differently and paid attention to. But in relegating to protesting, which is familiar ground for both activists and their targets, they unfortunately steered their followers off a cliff. The act of protesting branded the movement as nothing more than typical left-wing elitist ideology. It was the wrong move.

It should be clear by now that I didn’t attend the prorogation protest. Instead, I recalibrated at home on that Saturday afternoon, by buying groceries and visiting the Calgary Farmers’ Market. I didn’t think anyone would care or notice. Besides, just think of how interesting and understandable my posts will be since taking the time to reset.

Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition, was in Calgary yesterday as part of his cross-Canada campus tour. It was his 6th visit to Calgary in the last 12 months. He spoke at the MacEwan Hall Ballroom at the University of Calgary in front of an audience of approximately 500 students and public. After a short speech he took an hour’s worth of questions, ranging from the climate crisis to proroguing, his conviction as a Canadian, to equalization payments regarding Alberta’s oil sands. He even took some pointed questions from hardened Conservatives in the audience regarding his authored statements regarding torture versus his stance now, as well as his stand on the need to raise taxes amid Canada’s amassed debt during the recession.

Media from a handful of outlets showed up and the audience was genuinely interested in engaging Ignatieff. He was equal to the task and answered each question candidly, no matter how ridiculous the accusation was. Regarding his stance on raising taxes, he explained in fine fashion how the Conservative Party and media had pounced on a 15-second sound bite, while the entirety of his quote was a minute and a half. He reiterated that unless all options were rendered useless, then there may be a need to raise taxes.

Ignatieff was clearly in his element speaking in front of students, and the appreciation for his time and visit was apparent in the number of people that showed up. As I stated in an earlier post, more of these types of visits in the future would undoubtedly build a strong base of support for him in every Canadian community.

See my photos of his visit on my online photo gallery. A short cut to the specific gallery is here.

Ladies and gentlemen, 2009 has finally left the building.

Popularly, from an economic, political and environmental point of view, it was agreed that 2009 was a year to forget; though in hindsight it really wasn’t a bad year as far as my own life was concerned. Sure my childhood hero fell from the highest of heights and my hockey team teased and under-delivered yet again, but otherwise, amongst other wonderful benchmarks, last year saw my wife and I both turn 30 years old and our marriage turned 4 (our relationship turned 10). Perhaps it’s best said that 2009 put a lot of things into perspective for me.

Professionally it was a fine, yet confounding year. It was my fourth in my current job. While the publishing industry suffered greatly and probably insurmountably, my magazine survived and it shined in comparison to most. My responsibilities were well managed and capably executed. Surprisingly, and in spite of everyone preaching calamity, my take-home was only slightly impacted. Yet despite the financial result, my work was more stressful than ever before. It was a year where nothing could be taken for granted and every dollar was hard-earned. Maybe this year proved that I can be successful despite adversity and less than desirable circumstances. I will live a shorter life, though, because of it.

I travelled a pile in 2009, both for work and for pleasure. According to TripIt (which is a travel manager used in conjunction with LinkedIn) I made 15 trips to 10 cities in 2 countries for a total of 76 days and covering 38,169 kilometres. That’s almost all the way around the world. It was fun.

Outside of work, a great deal of other initiatives and successes were had. I began and completed a PR certificate from the University of Toronto, thanks in part to my wife and my friends who inspired me to continue making myself more interesting and diverse. In this educational endeavour I enjoyed my finest academic marks ever, finishing in the top of my class. Logic may tell you that my future lies in public relations or some related field, but unfortunately things are not always that linear nor clear.

In 2009 I realized, dignified and joined Twitter. In fact I did it twice. My personal account began in March and is now up to 151 followers, while I personally follow 45 people (I’m not one of those “follow me and I’ll follow you and we’ll race to a million” people; I actually read what others have to say). I advocated hard for a company Twitter account and succeeded in launching it. I continue to maintain it and we are up to 667 followers on only 293 tweets, with 137 folks followed. I also boosted my network on LinkedIn (I love LinkedIn – so much potential) up to 130 contacts and joined Facebook. I still do not know how Facebook works and am intimidated by the motley crew of characters from my past that loiter there.

I made a crap-load of money selling used goods on Kijiji in 2009, including a Mac Powerbook laptop, two couches, an IKEA chair, some entry-level furniture and our BowFlex. For each I got as much or more than I thought I would. For some items, like my Powerbook and BowFlex I was ‘generously’ compensated. Hey, I’m in sales, what can I say? My haul-to-date off Kijiji must be around $2,500. And that’s tax- and fee-free. What a service.

2009 saw me enter the world of SLR photography and only a couple of months after purchasing my first SLR camera did I end up becoming a volunteer photographer for the team of Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta. Several different shoots, including a day-long excursion throughout Calgary, left me with great experience and some wonderful shots. Two landed in prominent magazines as well as throughout the Liberal Party website and associated accounts. I bolstered my camera gear with a couple of bags, a flash and a tripod. All wonderful tools.

I was on the receiving end of a couple of spectacular customer service failures during the year – enough to earn my ire and retort and resulted in blog posts. And The Camera Store and Arpi’s still suck big time and haven’t seen a dime from me since.

My wife and I worked very hard in 2009 to continue nurturing our eco-consciousness and reduce our environmental impact. Yes, I know that’s somewhat hypocritical given the miles I’ve travelled, though an incomplete effort cannot be deemed hypocrisy in my opinion, otherwise why would any of us try at all. As Chris Turner, author of The Geography of Hope says, “The Perfect is not an enemy of The Good.” A list of our accomplishments can be seen here.

2009′s resolutions were listed as follows:

- continue working out: something which I started near religiously about 13 months ago, and I’m very pleased with the results
- do lots of hiking with my wife in the spring, summer and fall this year
- commit to both of us doing more cycling
- eat sensibly – with an emphasis on local and organic wherever and whenever possible
- minimize my accumulation of packaging when I buy things, namely plastic bags
- accomplish a photography certificate and become exceedingly proficient with my new toy (pictured above)
- redevelop this website to better showcase my photography (not a fan of the fixed width in particular)
- paint the house and build a bedroom in the basement
- stick to a budget

Well, number 1 was a fail. My workouts’ demise began with pain in my shoulder. Though I began working out on the advice of my doctor, who said my chronic back and neck pains were a result of a lack of core strength, my RMT told me straight away that my shoulder and neck pains were likely due to my workouts, overall tension and lack of mobility and range of motion in my chest, shoulders and back. This was made even more clear when I put my back out just prior to the beginning of my intense period of travel in November. So the workouts were shelved and I dedicated my personal fitness time to yoga. I fell in love with yoga, in fact, and were it not for nearly two months of straight traveling in the fall, I likely could be labeled ‘hard core’ by now. Despite my schedule yoga and my enjoyment of it persists. And my shoulder and back pain are nearly gone (however now I am suffering from a pulled groin).

Number 2 was similarly doomed. My wife and I only hiked twice all year, although we walked extensively during our travels to various places such as Vancouver and Las Vegas.

Number 3 was a spectacular fail. Our bikes made it out of the garage once this year.

Number 4 was capably implemented and enjoyed. We are ardent supporters of our local farmers markets and of environmental and sustainably-focused local produce and grocery establishments such as SPUD and Planet Organic. My wife enjoyed a great deal of success with her back yard garden and we enjoyed its bounty throughout Calgary’s growing season (insert joke here).

Number 5 was adequately followed as described. Our stash of reusable shopping bags in the back of the car is significant and our effort to choose against a plastic bag at some stores has resulted in some suspicious looks from fellow consumers, much to our delight. We continue to choose against any additional packaging or bags for things like produce when bought from stores.

Number 6 was half successful in literal terms, though over-achieved conceptually. See above.

Number 7 fail; though my online photo gallery is flourishing and has resulted in business and contract work.

Number 8 achieved, though only recently. The living room was painted the day before yesterday (a flicker of inspiration was captured and lit afire) and our basement was carpeted two months ago. We found that building an extra room was unnecessary.

Number 9… sure, sort of.

2010 resolutions will be published, eventually, once I’ve an idea of exactly what they are, what is motivating me and how much I feel I ought to share on this increasingly popular forum.

Reviewing the past year’s goals and accomplishments I am thankful for my motivation to achieve them, for the opportunities that have resulted and for the inspiration that I’ve drawn from friends and family. Looking back on my thoughts and posts, I am satisfied with how I’ve been able to share my feelings and opinions on issues that matter to me. And I am grateful for your attention and participation throughout. Things will undoubtedly continue to develop and change in the upcoming year and I am ever so happy to have you along for the ride.

(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.

This morning, as with every morning, I awoke to CBC Radio’s Calgary Eyeopener. I enjoy beginning my day with the news as reported by Canada’s public broadcaster (who are more interested in quality reporting than their advertisers). Today at about 6:20 AM they had on a regular guest political commentator: Ottawa Citizen columnist Susan Riley, who seems to be a rather astute political commentator.

She was being interviewed on the topic that public and media opinions seem to suggest that Michael Ignatieff and the federal Liberals have benignly wasted their summer opportunities: failing to make headlines, calling the government to task, shedding light on policy initiatives or otherwise garnering any media attention whatsoever. The popular suggestion creeping its way across Canada is that Ignatieff has been off the map, as though he’s been taking holidays. The truth of the matter is that he’s been cris-crossing Canada all summer, including a whirlwind first week of July, where he was in Fredericton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. I was with him for the latter two (photos here). Riley wisely suggested that rather than this being an issue of Liberal malaise, it was instead indicative of an inept communications/ media relations department.

Perhaps it is not popularly known (another communications debacle?), but the space between doing something and everyone hearing about it falls entirely into the lap of communications. As much as I would love everyone in the world to know I’m writing this blog post, for example, unless I tell them about it, only those proactive enough will ever find out. If I truly wanted to tell the world and had some resources at my disposal, I would consider developing and nurturing media relationships, writing and sending them press releases, following up to establish some sort of connection to/with them, engaging some publicity stunts and photo ops (organizing “how many days until he visits his riding” rallies outside the often vacant offices of Jason Kenney and Rob Anders?), and perhaps buying some advertising in key outlets that best attract my target audience. In my case it would be print publications like the Globe and Mail, The Walrus; online pubs like thetyee.ca and theglobeandmail.com; on TV stations like CBC Newsworld, Showcase, and maybe a few highway and roadside billboards (ha!). Once the word was out, it would be up to me to substantiate the effort with content.

The Liberals enjoy the luxurious position of having a very substantiative leader – what’s missing for some reason (at least recently) is the call to action to pay attention to him. While I won’t pass judgement on the professional ability of his communications department (because I’m sure they’re capable people), I agree with the journalist in principle. The man has been doing his part (though I do wish he was releasing more policy and spending more time listening to Canadians and engaging their questions), but it seems that his actions are not translating into press; therefore not translating into voter behavior nor poll results. Thus, we have an exhausted Liberal leader whose actions are going unnoticed. This is a major problem in itself, regardless of the fact that their inadequacy may determine whether or not there is indeed a fall election (or a successful one). Added to this are some more serious concerns: if this party can’t get their communications streamlined during the passive summer months, what could we expect during an election or if Ignatieff becomes Prime Minister?

The communications departments likely do not have it easy up on Parliament Hill, what with the rat race and hierarchies and bureaucracy, etc. That said, there ought to be a more cohesive effort, because in general it appears that the media are waiting for something to write about. And left with little press material coming from the Opposition, they are resorting to making it up themselves, which is where the “Michael Ignatieff is nowhere to be seen” story line comes from. In my opinion, the Opposition Leader’s Office and Liberal Party of Canada communications teams ought to have entered the summer with a plan and anticipated and even scheduled roll outs of material. Just as they book Ignatieff’s flights, so too should the communications teams have worked with advisors to ensure each week began and ended with a compelling story line highlighting the action the party had been taking despite the holiday season. Alas, here we are with a well-travelled politician with little respect being paid to the thousands of kilometers he’s traveled or the thousands of hands he’s shaken. Quite shocking really, that such substantial action can be so entirely disguised.

Further to this critical tack, I would like to add an addendum to my recent post discussing both Ignatieff’s and Obama’s struggles with regards appropriately addressing their respective ongoing debates (the Liberal brand and US health care reform):

It is important that the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff himself start to pay more attention to public opinion and respect (in other words, not dismiss) the fact that a viable proportion of Canadians do not believe they know him or that the party has definitive policies on major issues. It’s neither here nor there whether or not this sentiment is true. If these opinions are indeed true, then we are dealing with a leader facing an identity crisis and a party facing an ambiguous and therefore tumultuous stance leading into a fall session where an election may be called. If these allegations are unfounded, then we are dealing with a communications crisis whereby the leader and party have been unable to effectively communicate their identity, values and stance to voters. Either way, these situations must be rectified immediately.

It is when a popular belief is reinforced publicly through polling that it gains traction in the media. When nothing is done by the political parties in question, true apathy and disgust begin to take effect. With their new leader and a refreshed focus on supposed ‘real’ Canadian issues, the Liberal Party of Canada has temporarily washed away this opinion, suggesting that things are different and that they have a new leader capable of listening to his citizens and representing their wishes. This must be reflected in day-to-day operations, however because trust is a scarce commodity in politics and can quickly decay. People are all too familiar with disassociating politicians’ words from their actions, as has been the pervasive precedent throughout Canadian politics (see my post on that here).

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.

What I got back, whether or not directly related to my letter, was sent to me because I must now be known within his office as a “concerned constituent” or “politically active.” Or whatever. Prentice’s letter was dated July 24 (precisely five months and four days after mine to him) and was a form letter.

Here’s the text from the letter:

“On June 19th, Parliament rose for the summer after a very eventful winter and spring. During this time, our Government made clear that our top priority was taking responsible, effective measures to strengthen and safeguard our economy. I would like to share with you the progress we have made in this area.

First, our Government has laid the groundwork for strong fundamentals by:

- Paying down our debt in good times so we now have more room to maneuver in tougher times.

- Lowering taxes across the board to help make Canadian companies more competitive and to relieve some of the financial pressure felt by families.

- Maintaining prudent regulations for banks to ensure they are strong enough to weather external pressures.

In January, after consultations with the provinces, business leaders, the opposition parties and Canadians, our Government introduced Canada’s Economic Action Plan. It is the largest infrastructure renewal program in half a century. The Plan is stimulating Canada’s economy in order to preserve and create jobs by speeding up investment in infrastructure. Projects receiving support include roads, bridges, transit systems, broadband internet infrastructure, scientific and technological research and development and clean energy projects.

Our Action Plan has received significant support both at home and abroad, exemplified by a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which stated: ‘The IMF supports the strong fiscal package announced in January, which was large, timely, and well targeted, and it will buoy demand during the downturn.’

I was happy to see many of you at my Annual Calgary Centre-North Stampede Breakfast. While I have been working and travelling to prepare for the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December, I look forward to spending time in the constituency this summer and participating in some of the great events held in our communities. For more information on our Government or to contact me, please visit www.jimprentice.ca.”

The letter wasn’t even hand-signed. It was a jpeg signature, indicated by the pixelation in the letter “m.”

I can’t help but feel that I am a lowly peasant living in a village in medieval England. I feel like we all are. I feel that any Canadian who isn’t running a bank or a big business is merely a pee-on; who goes about their day while our rulers conduct their important matters with corporations and other nations. Every time we speak up we are appeased but not satisfied. We are given our bread which keeps us quiet, and the King continues to wallow amongst aristocrats and converse with his bankrollers. Whenever we speak up we are told that every initiative is by us and for us, though fundamentally, we are brushed aside and ignored.

But nowadays, appeasement does not suffice. Interest groups, activists and lobbyists leverage much more influence and power via the internet and dramatically improved communications amongst opposition parties. In fact, this simple blog post might be picked up by hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly distressed Canadians. Before you know it, you’ll have a communications crisis on your hands that could have been mitigated by actually replying to someone whom you directly represent in government. But don’t go calling now; no sir, it is too late for knee-jerk, reactionary response. Besides, that’s not the character that I want in my representative.

Mr. Prentice, in response to your form letter, four red flags prominently rise:

- why are we seeking economic action approval from the IMF rather than that of Canadians? I recall your parliament proroguing rather than facing the music the first time you tried passing a budget this past winter.

- if you’re interested in paying off the debt, why did you slash the GST from 7% to 5%, ultimately reducing the government tax intake by approximately $7 billion per year? Oh, wait, that was so I could save $2.40 off the next pair of shoes I buy. Right.

- show us some proof that ACTION is actually being taken. In all the fields you mention, especially “clean energy,” I’d love to see what you’re doing there. It is your department afterall. Your ‘Plan’ would be more aptly titled, “Economic Ambiguity,” as it seems that you have no interest in connecting the dots for us, and your government has divested all accountability in proving that it has actually resulted in anything. You’ve allocated money, sure. But to what? Let’s see some proof that there are shovels in the ground, as your government has so plainly advocated. Shouldn’t be that hard, and with proof I’m sure you’d see reciprocal votes. Tit for tat.

- I was not at your Stampede Breakfast, which, by the way, apparently featured styrofoam plates and cups. Not great imagery for the Minister of the Environment.

Sir, I am done writing you. If I write you a letter and all I get in return is a photocopy of something one of your staffers wrote and had cleared by the PMO, I won’t bother wasting my time. It is clear that you are representing your government and not your constituents, which is entirely the opposite of your job description. Sensible people see right through your camouflage. Mailing blanket statement form letters do more damage to your communications efforts than doing nothing at all. Moving forward, I will take my protest public and you can deal with the ramifications on your own time.