Category: Chairman’s Desk

There will be only one winner with the dream of leading the Conservatives to power. The other 13 would-be leaders will face the harsh reality of the May 27 leadership vote — and for some it will not be pretty.

Early last year, I joked that the Conservative leadership race was more like the story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs than a contest for head of a national party. Today, as more and more would-be leaders jump into the pool, I’ve come to think of it as the story of 101 Dalmatians.

The number of entrants is eye-popping; especially for a party that many pundits have assigned a snowball’s shot in hell of winning the next election.

Watching the leadership debates — with 14 participants strolling onto the stage one by one — is like watching a seemingly impossible number of clowns pop out of a Volkswagen Beetle. And the debates themselves don’t seem to be debates so much as hours-long question-and-answer snore fests with as little chance of risk, spontaneity and mistakes as possible.

Indeed, more than once, a few of the leadership contestants have looked perilously close to dozing off during what should be a career-defining event.

The decision to enter a leadership campaign is not one made lightly. It involves raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign non-stop across the country for months.

It’s a strain on health, personal finances and family.

And to top it all off, candidates are competing for a sometimes dubious prize — one that comes with an even more punishing life. A party leader must renew their commitment to non-stop campaigning. In public, that means everything from a strawberry social in Charlottetown to meeting in a church basement in Kelowna.

And within the backrooms of their own party, the new leader has to survive dark rumblings from a caucus desperate to return to power, not all that confident it now has the right leader for the job.

So why have so many Conservatives taken the plunge? It is, after all, a contest that will end in disappointment for 13, and an impossibly daunting task for the ‘lucky’ winner.

An observer of U.S. politics once remarked that every morning, 535 members of Congress look at themselves in the mirror and see a future president staring back at them.

The same is true in Canada.

The prospect of leading a party that is but one election cycle away from winning government and launching a new chapter in political history is very tempting for many who have, for years, looked at and listened to Stephen Harper and thought, ‘I could do better.’

That’s why, when there’s an opening for the leadership of one of the two federal parties in Canada that have formed government, the work begins in earnest.

With major candidates such as John Baird, Peter MacKay and Jason Kenney absent from the current federal Conservative party contest, the race becomes even more attractive to other contestants.

The simple fact there is no clear front-runner with a run away band wagon of support means that not one candidate’s chances are as good as an other.

The fee to get into the race was $100,000 — an amount most members of Parliament and business people who want to enter politics could easily raise. And, many will feel that, with so many candidates to split the vote, they have a hope of winning.

But it is an unpleasant fact that 13 of the contenders will lose. An even more unpleasant fact is that a significant number will lose quite badly, ending with as little as 2 per cent of the vote.

Why, then, are they all still in the race? Why haven’t some of them dropped out, and spared themselves the embarrassment?

There are a number of reasons.

For many of the 14, it is like the first round of a poker game. The have anted up, their money is in, so why not wait and see what happens?

For some, they are running not so much to win this time, but more to raise their profile and build their network for a second run against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Others are on a mission to raise the profile of an issue they care deeply about; a good example is Rick Peterson’s one-man mission to rid Canada of corporate income tax

And then, of course, there is yet another reason — vanity.

Many candidates didn’t receive this much attention when they were elected to Parliament 10 years ago with visions of stars in their eyes. They are flattered by the sustained media and Internet attention.

Many of the 14 candidates are deluding themselves that they have a chance at winning. Perhaps it’s a delusion that can be forgiven, but on May 27 they will face the harsh reality of the results of the leadership vote.

I would wager, however, that several people will wake up the morning of May 28 kicking themselves for having let the glare of attention blind them to the reality of the result.

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

His biggest weakness is that he has no idea how to get what he wants, which leaves him vulnerable.

Since the American election, commentators have been bemused, and even amused, by President Donald Trump’s alleged inconsistencies.

On immigration, Trump has been on all sides of the issue. His position has drifted from ‘figure it out later,’ to ‘deport bad hombres,’ to ‘let the good ones stay,’ and so on.

Trump has also mused about every strategy in the books to deal with Daesh, also know as ISIS. He has insisted any plan had to remain a secret, but then hinted at the need for Russian co-operation. He later updated that to include possibly sending ground troops. He reconsidered ground troops in short order, but now Marines have been deployed in Syria.

All that being true, I believe Trump is the most consistent president in recent memory — not because of his ‘consistent inconsistency,’ but rather for his unwavering commitment to the fundamental policy positions he has maintained since he launched his presidential campaign in June 2015.

Cast your mind back 21 months to that infamous moment when Trump descended by escalator to the Trump Tower lobby and was welcomed by a small crowd of paid talent.

His campaign launch speech highlighted four key ideas — four commitments that to this day remain non-negotiable, foundational pieces of Trump’s policy. These are the commitments that will not only define his presidency but the American political discourse for years to come.

Trump vowed to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, and he declared that Mexico would pay for it. He has not wavered on that. Today, the U.S. Congress is exploring funding options for the wall and pursuing ways to ask Mexico for reimbursement.

Since the beginning, Trump has also been adamant that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, had to go. He committed to repealing and replacing the law with ‘something terrific.’ His position has not vacillated; repealing and replacing Obamacare remains at the top of his agenda.

Perhaps most troubling for Canada, Trump has long questioned America’s trade deals. In his campaign launch, he noted: ‘Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people, but we have people that are stupid. We have people that aren’t smart. And we have people that are controlled by special interests. And it’s just not going to work.’

Since he became president, he has killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, signalled his intention to renegotiate NAFTA, and taken an aggressive stance toward China. In his recent address to Congress, the president spoke about trade five separate times.

Trump also announced he would be the leader who could bring back America’s manufacturing jobs. He promised that he ‘would be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.’ And since taking office, Trump has remained steadfastly focused on this task, and has been gloating that his first full month in office has sparked a massive ‘optimism’ and employment boom.

On these four foundational policy pillars, highlighted 21 months ago, Trump has remained remarkably consistent. In short, for him, nothing has changed.

That said, Trump has no realistic plan to accomplish any of these objectives. Indeed, his biggest weakness is that he has no idea how to get what he wants.

He has no experience in getting policies through to the finish line. His Twitter-centric communications style reveals a lack of the restraint and patience needed to shepherd a policy through the machinations of government.

While Trump’s intended goals may well be immovable, his ‘means to his ends’ remain bizarrely in flux.

And this is precisely where Trump is vulnerable. It is here where the courts, Democrats in Congress, social activists and others can most effectively oppose Trump’s policies and propose other solutions.

While the Trump train knows its destination, it doesn’t know which track to use or how fast to go. This is where moderates can exercise influence and minimize damage. We’ve already seen this with the dialed-down ‘Muslim ban 2.0’ introduced last week.

While he is in office, Trump will focus on delivering these four key pillars. The test of success, however, will not come until he leaves office and we can all see what is actually left behind.

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

Today’s media landscape allows for politicians to avoid addressing tough policy questions and scandals by dangling shiny objects ‘ and Donald Trump is the master.

Along with this being the post-truth era, it is also increasingly the era of distraction — when politicians dangle shiny objects to distract media and voters from deception going on elsewhere.

Voters these days are easily distracted by politicians’ desperate bids for attention. In recent years, politicians have questioned a president’s birth certificate, resorted to ridiculous tweeting, and, amongst other stunts, promoted alternative facts.

Using such distractions, politicians are gaining unprecedented control over their message. Politicians often now resemble celebrities rather than thoughtful policy-makers.

The adage that there is no form of bad publicity appears to be truer than ever.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who reportedly consumes more television news than any president before him, would appear to also be the president who understands how best to manipulate it. The more outlandish his tweets, radical his policies, and atypical his actions, the more attention he receives from the media. His detractors become more infuriated, his base of support more invigorated.

Last week with the cable news networks fixated on the Trump campaign’s ‘constant’ discussions with the Russians, the president came out and held an hour and fifteen-minute news conference during which he was widely reported to appear ‘unhinged.’ The result, however, was no more talk about those pesky Russians.

In the last several days, the president, with little fanfare, announced a review of Obama-era waterway regulations, reshuffled his national security team, signed an executive order easing U.S. fiscal regulations in the Dodd—Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and signalled his support for Republican measures to replace Obamacare.

These are significant events that deserve significant attention, but there is a real chance that many people missed them. That said, there is little chance that people missed the photo of Trump aide Kellyanne Conway kneeling on the couch in the Oval Office, or that the president called the media the enemy of the American people.

In many ways, Trump is well on his way to replacing Ronald Reagan as the Great Communicator.

Today’s information landscape — vastly different from that of the 20th century — allows Trump’s strategy to work. His tactics wouldn’t have worked in the era when print newspapers and suppertime newscasts dominated media consumption.

Today, shareable and trending posts on popular social media sites are rapidly closing in on television as the breaking news source for North Americans. Facebook is the leading source of news for those under the age of 45. Trump’s attention-seeking ways are dominating our feeds and distracting us from events and news items that we would have had little choice but to consume in traditional media not too long ago.

The economic constraints that are weighing down traditional media have led organizations to focus on headline-grabbing announcements, scandal and horse-race journalism. For struggling news organizations, such surface-level reporting is easier, draws greater attention, and attracts a bigger audience.

It is the information equivalent of no longer having your parent around to tell you to eat your vegetables.

While Trump may be the most successful dangler of shiny objects around, he is not the only politician who uses this media strategy today.

In Canada, Conservative party leadership contender Kellie Leitch has also benefitted from the age of political distraction.

Early in her bid for the Conservative party leadership, Kellie Leitch made a media splash by announcing her plan for vetting immigrants to Canada for their ‘Canadian values.’ With the long campaign, and Kevin O’Leary’s decision to enter the contest, Leitch’s relevance began to wane. Her response: the most poorly produced and awkward video this side of St’phane Dion’s 2008 production.

The eight-minute video featuring Leitch defending her immigration screening proposal has been viewed on social media by more than a million people. And while the video has been lampooned for its poor quality and awkwardness, the attention has put Leitch firmly back into the national conversation.

Similarly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent announcements around the budget and Canada’s commitment to the middle class garnered little attention, but a BuzzFeed article that zoomed in on pictures of his rear end triggered a stir several times greater than that created by his policy speeches.

This is not merely a lesson for political practitioners.

The business, marketing and technology sectors long ago realized the importance of grabbing the attention of an audience at any cost. It was only a matter of time until politicians caught on.

I am not convinced Trump’s people strategically placed Conway on her knees on the Oval Office couch, and perhaps Leitch’s staff didn’t hire an amateur videographer to purposefully shoot a horrific video.

However, in an age when media is consumed at lightning speed and is shared more widely than ever, and when people are increasingly distracted, those with techniques for commanding attention often find themselves leading the pack.

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

It is a truth that many won’t speak, but it is time to recognize: a significant chunk of our population feels anxious and uncomfortable with our current approach to immigration.

In many ways, it is surprising the Canadian d’tente over immigration and identity issues has lasted this long.

While Canada has avoided the vitriolic debate that has roiled other developed countries, it is na’ve to believe this unusual harmony will last.

The number of immigrants admitted to Canada has steadily risen under successive governments, with little public dialogue beyond a tacit recognition that it was necessary for economic growth. Liberal and Conservative governments alike have limited changes in immigration policy to tinkering around the edges.

Yet in many developed nations, debate about immigration and national values has overtaken the public agenda. Successful populist campaigns worldwide have been rooted in issues surrounding immigration and identity.

Donald Trump’s victory, Brexit, and the rise of populist politicians across Europe have all centred in large part on immigration.

A highly emotional subject, it pits the gut feelings of people living in hard-hit economic areas against those in well-to-do urban centres, polarizing citizens among class lines. The result is a potent clash that reverberates throughout societies.

All of which makes it all the more surprising that successive governments of Canada have managed to sail serenely on. But make no mistake: The same questions that rocked France, the U.K., and the United States are swirling beneath the surface here as well.

We saw brief flashes of this during the last days of Stephen Harper’s regime. Two issues that emerged in the final days of that government were the wearing of the niqab during citizenship ceremonies and while voting, and increasing the number of refugees accepted into Canada.

While many election analysts have since decided Harper’s government was defeated in no small part due to its stance on these issues, the data contradicts that point of view. Veterans of the campaigns point out that both public and internal polls indicated those positions actually garnered significant support.

While the Conservatives were strongly outpolled by the Liberals on kitchen-table issues, such as the economy and taxes, they remained buoyant on issues of security and immigration, allowing them to remain competitive even after 10 years of controversial governance.

That revelation should not be surprising, given recent electoral results across the world.

For their strong stances on the issues, campaigns such as Brexit and that of Donald Trump were reviled, mocked and dismissed by the establishment as racist and nationalistic.

And yet, on election day, voters delivered a different verdict. Both campaigns won on the backs of blue-collar voters in areas that had been left behind economically, and who believed their nations’ shine had been dulled. Making America Great Again and Taking Control of the U.K. empowered voters whose voice had been lost.

And that was just the campaign. Now, there is governing. For instance, on the weekend that Trump temporarily banned immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations, the uprising was swift. The media castigated Trump’s executive order. Protesters stormed across the country, shutting down airports. Twitter was alight with mocking and derisive posts. One could be forgiven for thinking it was the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency.

And yet when polls began to trickle out in the days following, it revealed a clear, albeit divided, picture: Slightly more Americans supported President Trump’s executive order than opposed it.

The results offered a fascinating look at an uprising against a discredited policy; an uprising that was actually contradicted by the popular support of the American people.

Trump has, for now at least, fundamentally altered the debate around immigration and issues of identity in the United States. Brexit has done the same in the United Kingdom. Similar trajectory-changing shifts across Europe have occurred or are occurring.

And similarly raucous debates have begun here at home.

The Conservative leadership race has abruptly tacked away from the traditionally safe territory of taxes and balanced budgets. Instead, its candidates have begun to tread into issues of immigration and national values. And, if polls are to believed, they are doing so with the popular support of Canadians.

While the media, academics, Twitter, and elected establishment recoiled at Kellie Leitch’s proposal to interview all immigrants face-to-face to test their commitment to Canadian values, polls consistently have indicated that a majority of Canadians supported Leitch’s point-of-view.

It seems the Conservative leadership race has clued in to the fact there is an untapped reserve of policy angst over issues of Canadian identity. It is a truth that many won’t speak, but it is time to recognize: a significant chunk of our population feels anxious and uncomfortable with our current approach to immigration. That discontent will only grow as the media continues to frame the issue in a way that discounts those opinions.

It was only a matter of time. Identity politics and immigration are about to take up considerably more room at Canada’s policy table.

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

Jaime joins The Insiders this week to discuss spin in this new political climate.What exactly are ‘alternative truths’? When does spin become a lie? And when it does, who should call it out?

Aired on CBC’s The National on February 21, 2017.