We haven’t had a party like the Bloc Quebecois that was expressly talking about provincial rights in parliament for the last six or seven years.
—David Woolley
Colin MacDonald and David Woolley join Allie to talk about health care transfers, carbon tax, and the presidential debate.
Colin and Stephen chat about the latest Trump-Clinton debate. Who won? Does Trump have any hope left after questioning American democracy?
Aired on Live at Noon on CP24 October 20, 2016, 2016
Ugh. Where to start? I mean, where to begin with this most depressing of American presidential campaigns? November 8, 2016 just can’t come soon enough, right? We’ll just all wake up from this horrible dream, relieved it’s over and get back to normal. Such a peaceful thought. If only we could live our lives through rose-coloured lenses. Truth is, I know things aren’t right in this world when I find myself agreeing with a Globe and Mail columnist. John Ibbitson recently predicted that while Trump will likely lose, ‘he is the final warning to the elites.’ I’m afraid he hit this one on the head:
‘Unless political elites of both the left and the right become more humble, unless they once again ask themselves how their agendas will play in Peoria, the next rough beast might slouch over the corpse of the republic.’
We shouldn’t underestimate the strength of the anti-establishment sentiment in the US. It’s not going away anytime soon. Those of us looking for a return to normal are in for a surprise if Clinton wins. Her victory will bring immediate relief to just about everyone north of the border, but we won’t have time to catch our breath before an unsatisfied, unhappy underbelly of discontent rears its ugly head. I’d like to think the anti-establishment movement could shed itself of the racist, bigoted, protectionist elements that make it such a foul movement. But, I suppose that’s probably a pipe dream. I’m not the only one yearning for a return to something a little more—I don’t know—gosh darn sincere.
And for a brief moment, we all got that aw shucks sincerity. You may have heard of him. He was an Internet sensation for a couple days (that’s like 80 years in Internet age). Yep. Ken Bone, ye of perfect meme nomenclature. Amongst the wreckage of personal attacks that plagued the second presidential debate, this man-in-the-red-sweater asked a snoozer of a question about energy policy. Proving just how nerdy we really are, the Internet found love at first sight. In hindsight, I suppose it makes sense; Ken provided a respite from the divisiveness of this horrible campaign—a breath of fresh air in a moist, damp locker room.
What followed was as predictable as a Harlequin romance.
Within hours, people already had their perfect Halloween costume. Ken’s Twitter followers grew from a mere 7 to a whopping 250,000. He got play on the Late Night circuit and for a brief time symbolized all that is right with the world. We wanted to know why he went with a red sweater. We wanted him as a candidate. We couldn’t get enough. Why didn’t we see more of this in this campaign?
I’m not sure Ken knew what predicament he found himself in, but it was pretty much the worse place to be: the Internet’s hero. Once you reach that level, you can only fall, usually with a bruising thud. And when the Internet turns on you, it cuts deep. In truth, we all leave a trail on the Internet. And as we started digging, we found that our shiny new object wasn’t so shiny after all.
The debate question everyone loved…’what step will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?’…wasn’t as innocent as it first appeared. Ken works in the coal industry for a company that opposes climate regulations and has dodged current legislation to be environmentally friendly. In hindsight, his question seemed a little more self-serving.
He took to his fame by hosting a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything). Sure, he was a gracious host, and started a T-shirt campaign to raise funds to fight homelessness — but he foolishly used his old username, which made it dead simple for anyone to dig into his past musings. He apparently left a comment on a pregnancy subreddit describing expecting mothers as ‘beautiful human submarines.’ He confessed to viewing naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and, uh…enjoying it. He committed felony insurance fraud and even suggested the shooting of Trayvon Martin was ‘justified.’ He used his fame for a one-off Uber promotion in St. Louis. Just like that, our hero had become an ‘ignorant bonehead‘, and a seedy sell-out.
With the nasty stuff out of the way, some writers tried to paint a picture of a man—who like the rest of us—has many layers. No single person can be summed up in an Internet meme. This same Ken also wrote that he’s a conservative who likes Obama. He wrote a compassionate response to a rape victim. He condemned Stanford rapist Brock Turner.
Now Ken spends what appears to be considerable effort defending himself. He has clarified some of his comments. ‘I do not condone the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Justifiable means legal, not right.’ His Twitter feed now contains links to threads and articles that defend him. He still has fans who work feverishly to push out a more sympathetic narrative of Ken. But most of us have moved on. We’ve already had enough of Ken. He’s yesterday’s news.
I’ll leave it to Ken and his fanbase to defend his words and deeds. I only highlight his story as an example of how fickle we are. We don’t have time for old news. We move from one meme to the next in just about the same amount of time Usain Bolt runs 100 meters. It’s an unforgiving place—time is never on your side, and people are apt to remember the most negative thing that was last said about you. Never mind the full story or context. That’s boring. We want to be entertained.
But, we’ve gotten to the point where that entertainment is blurry. It’s not fun, even if we try to make it that way. There’s no escaping the slog of this campaign season. There was one symbol—even if we never really took it seriously— that was supposed to provide some kind of light in a dark world. Ken, version 1.0, made the Internet pleasant, at least for a couple hours. Now that light doesn’t shine so brightly. In a way, Ken has become a symbol of this campaign. Whenever we have thought that it might get better, it only gets worse. Everywhere we look, it’s ugly. All of it. And I’m afraid it only gets uglier here on in, no matter what happens on November 8.
On that cheery note, let me get back to what really matters.
In light of Tony Clement bowing of the Conservative Leadership race, Will and Evan Solomon discuss the remaining, and future, candidates.
Aired on Ottawa Now on October 13, 2016
Conservatives and NDP must attract more dynamic candidates and policies if they hope to challenge Trudeau
You could be forgiven for forgetting that two of Canada’s federal political parties are in the heat of leadership campaigns.
Exciting, competitive, closely fought leadership races can help bring opposition parties into the limelight, but this certainly is not happening for either the Conservative or New Democrats.
Eric Grenier’s popular poll aggregator blog, ThreeHundredEight.com, has the Liberal Party of Canada at 49.8 per cent in national polls. He forecasts this would translate into 275 seats in an election, or 81 per cent of the total seats in the House of Commons, leaving the Conservatives and New Democrats to battle it out for the remaining 19 per cent.
Of course, much of this can be attributed to Justin Trudeau’s fresh-faced leadership, the Liberal Party’s post-election honeymoon, and a forgiving electorate enjoying the government’s self-promoted ‘sunny ways.’ Moreover, much of the Canadian public’s attention is firmly focused on the clown show south of the 49th parallel.
Notwithstanding these distractions, the opposition parties are failing to capture the attention of Canadians. This failure has significantly weakened Canada’s political opposition.
With its poll numbers the way they are, the NDP could be lucky to win a handful of seats if an election were to be held today.
Both leadership contests are struggling from similar deficiencies — a dearth of well-known talent, a closed and exclusive electoral process, and a lack of substantive policy alternatives that challenge the status quo.
Much of the problem lies in the extended runway on which each leadership race is operating. The Conservative race is an 18-month slog, while the NDP’s is a 17-month marathon.
It is not easy to keep the attention of already distracted Canadian voters. They are likely recovering from political fatigue after the longest federal campaign in Canadian history. Further, it’s hard to draw attention to campaigns from which most Canadians are barred from participating.
So far, the race to replace Stephen Harper has failed to attract the star talent a leadership race of this magnitude would traditionally warrant. While six candidates have officially registered, none is a household name, and only one is fluent in both official languages. With Peter MacKay, Caroline Mulroney, and Brad Wall deciding to stay out of the race, it’s doubtful whether the campaign will come close to attracting the attention the Liberal Party and Trudeau had in 2013.
Meanwhile, the NDP, which will elect a new leader in October 2017, has not only failed to attract a single leadership hopeful but seen its best and brightest stars already rule out running, including Nathan Cullen, Megan Leslie, Rachel Notley and Avi Lewis.
In 2013, the Liberal Party of Canada took a risk and opened up its leadership race to what it called a ‘supporter’ class. This move to broaden its base allowed more than just card-carrying, fee-paying members to participate in the leadership contest. Nearly 300,000 Canadians signed up to choose the next Liberal Party leader. This not only drew attention to the race, it also helped add thousands of names to the party’s database, which were then used in 2015 to recruit volunteers and identify sympathetic voters.
The Conservatives and New Democrats have not opted to go this route. If attracting the interest of Canadians — and enough Canadians to win the next general election, as well as mining data, are central objectives in a leadership race, both the Conservative Party and NDP are failing.
Leadership races allow parties to benefit from big ideas and transformational policy alternatives. Suggestions, such as fully adopting the Leap Manifesto, instituting a national flat tax, or advocating for a Maritime Union — the proposed political union of the three Maritime provinces — are proposals that captivate audiences, draw attention, spur debate and lure supporters.
If neither the Conservative Party nor the NDP can use their leadership campaigns to drive the kind of attention that in turn drives a bump in the public opinion polls, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be even better positioned for a victory in the 2019 federal election.
There is, however, another side to the elongated timeline the parties have imposed on themselves: there is still time for party brass to re-evaluate and inject a shot of adrenalin into their leadership contests.
To the party that is best able to captivate Canadians, activate sympathetic voters outside its base, encourage well-known leadership aspirants, and successfully challenge candidates to propose concrete policy alternatives voters can rally behind, will go the prize. The poll position in the lead-up to 2019.
Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.
