Navigator logo

Month: November 2017

Russia Inquiry May Not Be Enough To Bring Down Trump

Posted on by

U.S. president continues to be buoyed by his supporters even as colleagues are indicted.

Yet another shoe has dropped in the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the last U.S. presidential election.

Close associates of President Donald Trump have been indicted, including his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

Many view the Russia inquiry, overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller, as the silver bullet to the Trump presidency. These opponents believe that a finding of collusion will end the regime and bring Trump down.

They reason that, much like the Watergate scandal, the lies and resulting coverup will reveal a deeply compromised president whose tenure will be irreparably damaged.

But critics who think that way continue to be naive to our new political world.

Even if Mueller finds hard evidence of collusion, it may not be enough to bring down a president who remains buoyed by his supporters. Perhaps even more problematically for these opponents, a successful impeachment may represent a long-term setback for their own side.

There are a multitude of reasons for this, but among the most prominent is President Trump‘s remarkable ability to obfuscate and confuse stories. Aided by a network of conservative media outlets, the president has managed to refocus and deflect allegations by constantly relaying messages on irrelevant or tangentially related issues.

For instance, on the same day that the media – CNN the lead among them – were breathlessly reporting the indictment of Manafort for suspicious activity with the Russian government, Trump began tweeting about Hillary Clinton‘s relationship with a mining company acquired by a Russian corporation.

The issue had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. Nonetheless, it successfully gained traction on a number of platforms, including much of television news. The problem is that most consumers of news do so casually, at best.

If you had watched the news or skimmed the headlines that day, it would be difficult to not conflate Clinton, Russia, collusion and Trump.

None of this is a coincidence. The Mueller investigation is extremely complicated and the president’s messages only make the issue more difficult to follow.

Trump seems to have a mastery of this communication strategy. He and his White House allies, aided by the 24/7 media cycle, have managed to noticeably turn the dial and intentionally confuse the issue on Russia’s election involvement.

To the well-read and focused reader, it seems rather obvious that the Trump campaign – or at least some of those embedded within it – worked with agents of the Russian government to release information that would hurt Clinton in the election.

And yet, the general population has far less understanding of this issue. And that will be critical for Mr. Trump‘s survival when the inevitable fallout from Mr. Mueller’s investigation occurs.

Trump has a dedicated following that has demonstrated considerable resistance to abandoning the president, and it seems unlikely that the complicated Russia issue will dissuade them any further.

If, in the end, the issue is not a cut-and-tried accusation that has direct ties to the president, it is unlikely that those who have not yet abandoned him will all of a sudden head for the doors. The issue has now been around long enough and has become confused enough that the media apparatus that supports Trump will prove, once again, to be his biggest asset.

As we have seen all year, Trump‘s appeal to a loyal base places considerable pressure on Republican members of Congress to remain loyal to the president.

Further to the practical challenges of the Mueller inquiry, it remains a question if it is even advisable to try to tackle the president in this way. Trump was elected to drain the Washington swamp and attack the entrenched Washington interests that voters revile so much.

Should the president be removed from office by the Congress, aided by investigations undertaken by federal agencies, it is almost certain that it would be seen as a coup by his supporters. Trump would claim, and would likely be supported by the conservative media network, that his ouster was the inside-the-Beltway crew yet again protecting itself.

Such an outcome could be disastrous for those who revile Trump‘s presidency. Their attempt to eject him from office could well backfire and, instead, inspire a backlash in the next election.

Those opponents of Trump who are watching the investigation unfold with glee need to beware. It is a road filled with traps, detours and blind spots. And while many want to storm down that road with little caution, heed must be paid to the many unforeseen consequences that lie ahead.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Let The Attacks Begin

Posted on by

Patrick Brown doesn’t want to be a target, nor does he want his party to be one.

Like hockey’s most elusive players, he is taking the right strides to make his opponents’ job of hitting him and his party more difficult.

Many grassroots Progressive Conservatives still suffer from nightmares of how the Liberals and their surrogates have successfully defined Tory leaders and policies in recent election campaigns.

A big part of the coming election will be about who defines Patrick Brown and the PCs. Will it be Brown himself and the party, or will it be the Liberals and their third-party surrogates?

In June, the Ontario Liberals will enter their fifth election since Dalton McGuinty led them to power in 2003.

It is shaping up as a contest between the overexposed and the still unknown. It’s the 15-year track record of McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne versus Patrick Brown and … what?

One of the Liberals’ most trusted surrogates, Working Families Ontario, recently released new attack ads, indicating the group can once again be counted on to try to negatively frame the Progressive Conservative leader.

While some say that Brown’s public profile is not as prominent as it needs to be at this point, I think he appreciates some important lessons from past Ontario PC losses. The first is to understand who you are, so you can say who you aren’t, which is valuable given Working Families’ tactic of using attack ads to define PC leaders.

Brown has made crystal-clear that an Ontario PC government will not be a champion of social conservative issues. This removes a huge cudgel from the hands of Working Families.

Negative advertising works when it pulls on an existing narrative thread and embellishes it. However, attempts by Working Families to paint Brown as a social conservative with a hidden agenda will be difficult when a number of actual social conservatives are complaining Brown has abandoned them.

The good news for Ontario conservatives and moderates hoping for a change at Queen’s Park is that Brown seems comfortable in his own skin. His public profile will come; in the meantime, Brown has succeeded in defining himself with audiences as a progressive conservative focused on growing the economy, delivering good government, and helping those most in need.

Brown’s emerging political agenda seems a natural fit for him. This is good news because authenticity is the best shield a modern politician can wield on the campaign trail.

As an example, I don’t think Premier Wynne has ever looked more awkward than when she’s been called on to defend the Hydro One sale. I don’t believe it’s something she ever really believed in as a self-described “activist,” and her lack of authenticity comes across when she talks about the issue.

The other challenge for surrogates like Working Families is that the Liberals were forced to pass rules limiting third-party advertising during the formal election period and six months beforehand. This means the union-backed ads must run before many voters are likely to be paying attention.

Of course, while the Liberals would like to focus on defining Brown, they face the reality that they have hard work ahead to change voters’ negative impressions of the Liberal government. No campaign of attack ads and wedge politics will be enough to avoid having to defend a stale 15-year record in government.

Mike Van Soelen is a Managing Principal at public affairs firm Navigator Ltd., and has served in many roles for Conservative governments at Queen’s Park and in Ottawa.

Canada’s Patchwork Of Pot

Posted on by

As the Trudeau government’s July 2018 deadline for the legalization of marijuana looms, Canadians are beginning to focus on the social and economic implications of the change. As political strategist and policy advisor Jaime Watt writes, both the federal government and its provincial counterparts have work to do to allay some serious concerns before next Canada Day.

Bill C-45, Canada’s cannabis legislation, was tabled in the House of Commons last April, signalling Prime Minister Trudeau’s commitment to proceeding with legalization. While the bill establishes a strict framework for production, sale and possession, major issues such as distribution, enforcement and road safety have been left for provincial and territorial lawmakers.

Provincial governments have expressed concerns about the July 2018 deadline that was assigned to them, but would be wrong to delay meaningful consultation, planning and preparation. Canada’s patchwork of competing regional, demographic, and cultural factors will greatly impact the entrance of legal recreational cannabis into the market.

The industry’s success or failure will be based on the ability of local decision-makers to work with producers and users to present a safe, legitimate, and fairly-regulated product.

Polling indicates that Canadian provinces will face challenges in this respect. According to Cannabis in Canada, Navigator’s monthly online public opinion tracking survey of 1,200 participants, Canadians hold significant reservations about the disruptive effect retail storefronts could bring to their communities.

Seventy-three per cent of Canadians believe that legalization will unclog the court system with needless cases and prosecutions for possession of marijuana for recreational use. An equal number believe legalization will provide marijuana users access to quality-controlled products that meet government requirements for strict production, distribution, and sale.

Despite this widespread understanding, concerns remain as July 2018 nears.

Our polling indicates that 44 per cent of Canadians currently support legalization, 37 per cent oppose. This lack of consensus suggests that both governments and producers have work to do. As a result, the response of provincial governments will show their best attempts at responding to these concerns.

Cannabis in Canada polling tells us a great deal about these motivating factors.

For example, government retail store fronts are the most popular model with support from 56 per cent of Canadian respondents.

In Ontario, the Wynne government, which faces re-election in June 2018, will be reluctant to delve into any controversial initiatives that distract from key campaign pillars.

Government retail outlets appear to be the route of least resistance. Their plan to distribute through a government-owned system and an online-based order service comes as no surprise. This model, they believe, allows the government to directly manage the output of legal recreational marijuana into the marketplace in a way that is reflective of current public opinion, which is a major motivator with less than eight months until Ontarians pass judgment on their current mandate.

The risk: if the government’s network of storefronts proves not to be consumer-friendly, black market producers and the current dispensaries operating in major cities will continue to thrive.

New Brunswick has taken a different approach. Premier Brian Gallant faces re-election, and therefore has been very vocal about his belief that the cannabis industry can drive economic growth. His government has created a Crown corporation to oversee sales, paired with two private cannabis businesses, and is procuring bids for retail solutions.

By working with established producers and market contributors, Gallant’s government feels it can balance social responsibility and provide a consumer-friendly product at a fair price.

A third approach, which is expected to be taken by British Columbia’s recently elected NDP government, will be forced to deal with the unique challenge of developing a legal framework in an environment where recreational marijuana is already widely distributed.

Remember, the City of Vancouver has provided business licenses to several existing dispensaries. Interestingly, only 46 per cent of British Columbia residents support legalization.

Understanding the potential impact of illegal dispensaries currently operating in communities will influence residents. This, of course, will be balanced with input from the active dispensaries, their customers, and ancillary businesses that advocate for a path to legalization. Premier John Horgan has expressed an understanding of this balance and has indicated that existing dispensaries will play a role in the province’s cannabis framework.

Regardless of the province, proper training for retail employees has emerged as a consistent priority for Canadians. Seventy-four per cent support the introduction of training and certification programs for marijuana retailers and 88 per cent believe such programs, if implemented, should be mandatory.

Political sensitivities, stakeholder management and catering to local environments will factor in all three government’s decisions about how to implement training programs.

Another voter concern that Canadian provinces will have to confront pertains to the location of storefronts. While only 37 per cent of Canadians actively oppose the legalization of marijuana, 50 per cent of all Canadians oppose a privately-owned recreational cannabis dispensary opening in their neighbourhood. Talk about NIMBYism.

All provincial governments will want to avoid any confrontation regarding concerns about proximity to schools and other community spaces. Provinces like British Columbia will be expected to develop rules to address these concerns.

While these evolving concerns will influence government activity in the coming months, ultimately, licensed producers hold responsibility for their own successes and failures.

After years of campaigning for legalization, licensed producers will be actively scrutinized by investors, regulators and concerned members of the public. If industry leaders are unable to adapt to a new regulatory framework and scale up to meet demand, Canadian concerns about the impacts of legalization are likely to worsen or remain unchanged.

As governments do the heavy lifting, licensed producers and other market participants should be working together to establish shared priorities and communicate collective commitment to responsible business practices that address health and safety concerns, while unlocking economic opportunities for communities.

If Canadians do not have the confidence in quality-controlled, regulated products, both governments and industry will share the blame.

The path towards successful legalization requires a collaborative and thoughtful approach that builds confidence among Canadians. Partisan politics will inevitably impact decisions on this subject. However, by understanding these pressure points producers will successfully set themselves on a path to respond to local concerns and to meaningfully participate in a safe, legitimate, and fairly-regulated environment.

Contributing writer Jaime Watt is Executive Chairman of Navigator Ltd.,
a national public affairs and government relations consulting company.