Category: Articles

After 13 painful rounds of elimination, Andrew Scheer was dubbed the victor in last weekend’s leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada, proving for once that nice guys can finish first.

The results were extremely close, with Scheer picking up roughly 51 per cent support on the final ballot. His closest rival and presumptive frontrunner Maxime Bernier came in at 49 per cent, with Erin O’Toole, Brad Trost, and Michael Chong respectively rounding out the top five in a field of 13 candidates.

Scheer Excitement

Despite a snarky headline from the Toronto Star suggesting otherwise, Scheer is a well-known figure within the Conservative Party. The 38-year-old MP from Regina—Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan started his political career by beating an NDP incumbent who had been the longest-serving member in the House of Commons. He then succeeded Peter Milliken in 2011 to become the youngest Speaker of the House ever recorded.

Scheer’s convening power was forged and tested in his role for four years as Speaker. For the uninitiated, Question Period is the most rambunctious, visceral, and exciting part of an MP’s daily routine in the House of Commons. The regular symphony of zingers, potshots and heckles should impress on the observer that any Speaker who could keep such boisterous MPs in line as graciously and as tenaciously as Scheer did is worth their weight in parliamentary gold.

Scheer is largely recognized as a brokerage candidate. He carries little, if any, of the baggage of the Harper years, and his voting record is limited to a few months before he started serving as Assistant Deputy Speaker in 2006.

Many, including the Liberals, had been expecting Scheer’s opponent Maxime Bernier to take the crown with his coloured past as a minister in Harper’s cabinet, his bold, libertarian policies and a solid endorsement from Shark Tank celebrity Kevin O’Leary.

In the wake of the upset, the best attack the Liberals could muster was a reversion to tired, old talking points about the dangerous spectre of social conservatism that Andrew Scheer raised. The NDP deigned to call Scheer “baby Trump”. We’ve heard this all before.

Such accusations are laughable at best, and absurd at worst, given Scheer’s failure to receive the endorsement of the most prominent anti-abortion group, Campaign Life Coalition, something earned by both his competitors Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux. Much to the Liberals’ disappointment, Scheer appears inclined to honour that classical liberal tradition of separation of church and state, and rightfully so.

The Other Half

For Scheer, it was more important to build a broader coalition among conservatives in Canada and preach unity within the party than it was to propagate any single ideology. In the pre-merger shadow of the PC-Reform split, Scheer continues to be anxious about “skipping the breaking apart phase” after this leadership race.

If the numbers tell us anything, Scheer’s win was not as clear-cut as we imagined. Some have attempted to simplify the Scheer and Bernier camps as a contest between rural and urban Conservatives, Western Canada against Eastern Canada, or even traditionalists against libertarians.

Source: Conservative Party Leadership Election 2017 Map, Wikimedia Commons

Looking at the numbers, it’s clear the narrative doesn’t hold true. Scheer picked up ridings in the suburban areas of Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto; in southwestern Ontario; and in the Maritime provinces. Bernier won support broadly from coast-to-coast-to-coast, urban and rural, with the exception of Scheer’s provincial heartland, Saskatchewan.

The map is a stark reminder for Scheer: 49 per cent of Conservative Party members voted for a libertarian candidate. In fact, this is the first time that we have seen libertarian ideas gain widespread traction and popularity among the Conservative faithful, especially among youth. Libertarians have consistently faced challenges with political organization, which some have characterized as the equivalent of herding cats (i.e. how do you organize people who don’t believe in centralized authority?). Bernier was certainly onto something.

It’s worth noting too that the policies presented by Bernier are not necessarily incompatible with the typical small-c conservative ideology advocating for small government, lower taxes, and individual freedoms. Scheer would do well to learn from Bernier on how to craft and deliver these policies to galvanize voters, especially if he is serious about building a broader coalition going into 2019.

To Keep Us Humble

The antics of his core campaign team aside, Maxime Bernier was a very different man on May 27 than the selfless ideological warrior he had been on the campaign trail. Pride goeth before the fall, and Bernier’s campaign is a testament to how arrogance can destroy political integrity. Adam Radwanski put it succinctly: “There was ample reason to wonder if Mr. Bernier was the right fit to lead a big-tent party”.

While the Conservatives would do well not to harp on the “should-haves” and “could-haves”, the truth is that such a narrow victory should keep both camps humble. Scheer knows he cannot win a general election without the other half that supported Bernier. This humility should encourage the Conservative Party to unite, return to its roots and sharpen this virtue as its greatest weapon against the Liberals.

In fact, Scheer has already started that work. His first question in the House of Commons on the following Monday was a direct attack on the Prime Minister’s most cherished file: youth. The new Leader of the Conservative Party criticized Trudeau’s tax-and-spend policies that he claimed hurt economic opportunities for youth.

The message hits a little closer to home when you consider the Liberal’s recent track record. Getting rid of the public transit tax credit, eliminating tax breaks on textbooks, and raising taxes on Uber and alcohol — all of these moves hit young people hardest from a party and a Prime Minister that has presumed to be the champion of youth.

While in its waning days, the Harper government was prone to absolute corruption brought by absolute power (did anyone say $16 orange juice?). Such behaviour is a drop in the bucket when you see the (re)iteration of Liberal arrogance in its various forms: limousine services, six-digit moving bills for PMO staff, and swanky, private fundraisers.

Canadians gave Trudeau a mandate because they thought he represented hope and change. Let that thought keep them humble, and the new Conservative leadership most of all.

Marvel is on Comixology Unlimited, which means Comixology Unlimited subscribers can now access Marvel titles. This is probably gibberish to people who do not read comic books, but trust me, it’s a very big deal for anyone invested in the comic book world. For everyone else, it’s a lesson in how content publishing is changing.

Comixology Unlimited is basically Netflix for comic books. Comixology Unlimited is an offshoot of Comixology, an online store for digital comics, but Unlimited uses a subscription model. Marvel is a major brand in the comic-book world. For six USD a month (the service is not yet available in Canada) users have unlimited access to a practically endless library of rotating titles. It has practically everything from superheroes, to manga, to graphic novels — just no DC, and a up until this month, no Marvel.

Many comic book fans, digital planners and businesses strategists never thought this day would come. The fact that Marvel is now on Comixology Unlimited shows how the power dynamics between aggregators and publishers have changed, thanks to digital media.

The Internet is vast and overwhelming, making aggregators a necessary step between publishers and consumers. This means reaching people involves researching the type of users or customers you want, learning where and how they prefer to interact with similar content, and optimizing your content so your audience can find it. Advertising will only go so far. People will want something, but if it’s not available in the most convenient form, they’ll settle for something close. For example, they will want to watch a certain show, but if it’s not on Netflix, they often end up settling for something similar that is available through the streaming service.

To grow an audience online you need to make sure people can find your content in the easiest way possible. Increasingly, this means putting your content in an aggregator, like Netflix. In this instance it’s Comixology — just like TV shows need to be in Netflix and websites need to be in Google, (eventually) comic book publishers will need to be in Comixology Unlimited.

So why did Marvel decide to join up? It’s not like they need the money — you might have noticed they make some pretty big movies. This month, more people will watch the second installment of Guardians of the Galaxy than will download Comixology Unlimited’s app for the entire year. But, while Marvel has media channels beyond comics, Comixology has done some very good work winning over comic book readers, which is slightly different than winning over comic book fans. Despite having Mickey Mouse and Robert Downey Jr. in its corner, Marvel still has to play the aggregator game in order to reach the users it wants — in this case, people that actually read comic books.

Marvel is not putting its entire catalogue on Comixology but it’s a very good selection. Comixology deserves a lot of credit for making this happen. Perhaps knowing it would not be able to offer Batman or Spider-Man, Comixology Unlimited went for all the other publishers. This was a smart move: people who like more obscure titles tend to be more devoted readers and are more likely to first, stay subscribed to Comixology Unlimited, and second, try different titles from another publisher recommended through the app. And for Marvel, this also makes sense. By offering some of its most popular books to the most engaged reading audience, Marvel increased the likelihood that one of these people will read one of its books and eventually become a devoted Marvel customer.

The applications for public affairs are obvious. With a world of practically unlimited content options, publishers have to identify their audiences. With Marvel, this means recognizing that not all comic book fans actually read comics, and even that not all comic readers buy digital editions. Marvel’s first wave of Comixology Unlimited titles are deliberate. Marvel didn’t join Comixology Unlimited to reach just anyone. It wanted digital comic book readers.

This is obviously good for Marvel and it also helps Comixology Unlimited grow by attracting users from Marvel’s considerable audience who might be looking to read less mainstream comics. For many, Marvel joining Comixology Unlimited is a victory for the little guy. The smaller digital reader/aggregator got buy-in from one of the industry giants. In a way, the new X-Men will have the same prestige as the latest issue of Saga, which is cool for comic book readers, but Marvel probably doesn’t see it that way. What it sees is an opportunity to use an aggregator to grow its audience.

The alt-right is an ambiguous term often used to describe a loose coalition of cultural conservatives, economic nationalists, white nationalists and a mix of other ideologies. They were Trump’s most virulent supporters and played a significant role in campaigning for Trump in the primaries and general election. Trump has, however, alienated his alt-right base since taking office.

While difficult to nail down, the alt-right’s policy principles centre on three key points: 1) opposition to immigration and multiculturalism; 2) support for free markets but opposition to free trade; and 3) opposition to overseas military intervention, particularly for the practice of “nation building” and “humanitarian” missions. Trump’s platform fell in line with these key points and the alt-right became fervent followers of the candidate they dubbed as “Daddy” or “The God-Emperor.”

As President, his appointments of Goldman-Sachs employees to key cabinet posts initially gave his alt-right supporters pause. Claims the border wall would take longer than anticipated to build made them nervous. But when Trump ordered airstrikes on a Syrian air force base after the gas attacks in Idlib, huge swaths of the alt-right turned on him.

In the wake of the bombings, Richard Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute think tank and most famous, perhaps, for his “Heil Trump” speech in Washington, D.C., described the military action as a “sad, shocking and deeply frustrating moment.” Red Ice Radio, dubbed the “CNN of the alt-right,” declared its hosts officially off the “Trump Train.” Alt-right members vented on blogs and forums that bombing Syria was what “Crooked Hillary” wanted, and they worried Trump had fallen under the sway of the very globalism he had claimed he would end.

In the mainstream media, Trump’s actions were lauded. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria declared that Trump was finally “a real President.” NBC’s Brian Williams quoted Leonard Cohen in describing the “beauty” of the bombs. For many opinion leaders who opposed Trump’s election, his response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria was a positive first step in the potential reformation of an otherwise disastrous presidency.

Trump’s attempt to pivot is a precarious one. He campaigned on a tough-guy message of “bombing the hell” out of ISIS and “doing a whole lot worse than waterboarding” to suspected terrorists, while also lambasting George W. Bush for the Iraq war and Clinton and Obama for the intervention in Libya. Mainstream opinion worried that Trump would be too close with Putin and wouldn’t use military action to stop dictators killing their own people. Liberal and centrist Americans doubted Trump had the composure to be president. His alt-right supporters either overlooked or actually enjoyed this aspect of his personality, and cheered on his supposedly isolationist message.

Now all that has changed. Increasingly, the alt-right are becoming opponents of Trump. Even Breitbart – the publication previously run by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon – has started publishing articles that are critical of the President, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump.

Trump has seriously alienated his base with his attempt to broaden his support among mainstream Americans. Most Americans opposed Trump because of his personality, not because of his anti-interventionist foreign policy. Boorish, impulsive, and inappropriate, many saw Trump as a man wholly unqualified to be president during his campaign. Since taking office, he has done little to assuage those fears — he Tweets at all hours of the night and makes public pronouncements that directly contradict those of his staff and cabinet. Regardless of his actions in Syria, Trump is still seen as an incompetent executive.

This is most apparent with the outcry against Trump’s (perhaps accidental, perhaps not) leaking of classified information to the Russian ambassador during a meeting in the Oval Office. Trump’s loose lips have only further cemented the opinions of his detractors. Now, Democratic lawmakers are actively calling for his impeachment.

Even if his personality was not a concern, Trump continues to enact a host of policies diametrically opposed to liberal values: repealing Obamacare, gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change research department, and banning foreign aid funding for pro-choice and family planning organizations. Trump’s actions in Syria may have won him praise among liberal and centrist Americans — particularly those in the media — but changes to his foreign policy are unlikely to overshadow these other policies.

The alt-right supported Trump because of his policies — the policies liberal America found so abhorrent during the campaign. His promises to build a wall between America and Mexico, deport illegal aliens, and to “end the false song of globalism” were what attracted the alt-right initially, but Trump has yet to enact these policies, and failing to do so risks alienating his core supporters.

Without the support of the alt-right, Trump risks motivating an extremely active and internet-savvy community to oppose him. MAGA memes, Pepe the Frog, and flame wars were all pumped out by the online mob of Trump supporters during the presidential race. Likewise, as more conservative Americans move to alternative media like Breitbart, Trump’s public clashes with Steve Bannon could turn the reliably pro-Trump publication into an anti-Trump propaganda machine.

After elections, politicians need to turn from their base and focus on policies that will improve the lives of all citizens. Trump is attempting to do this, but politicians also need to give certain concessions to their base to ensure these voters don’t abandon them at the next election. This is where Trump has fallen down. Both his travel bans have been struck down by the courts and his Obamacare replacement bill was pulled after not having sufficient support among Republicans. To the alt-right, Trump seems increasingly like a traditional Republican and the swamp seems far from drained.

If Trump continues to alienate the alt-right, he risks being left with no voter base in the next election (let’s not forget he won critical swing states by incredible thin margins) and could lose Senate and House seats in 2018. Liberal and centrist Americans have no reason to vote for a candidate whose presidency they see largely as a sideshow, while his alt-right base will have no reason to campaign for a candidate it sees as unable or unwilling to act on the promises that were attractive the first place. While some in the alt-right continue to hold out hope that the president is playing “4D chess” and will someday implement all the policies he campaigned on, most seem to have come to the conclusion that so many Americans had before the election: Trump is dangerously unpredictable and his word is never his bond.

Machiavelli tells us in The Prince there are three classes of intellects: “One which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”

For many watching the Conservative leadership race, it is perhaps too easy to divide candidates into these categories: those who are charismatic personalities running without substance and those who are brilliant thinkers running without any understanding of the base. The more pessimistic will even open up Machiavelli’s third category for those who lack both.

This is where the great divide becomes apparent between hacks and wonks. For hacks in this race, you edge out the competition by sticking to your polling data and securing the most memberships for victory. For wonks, taking the time to make your case and demonstrate you have a fresh, measured approach to reboot the party will mean not just seizing the day, but securing a legacy.

So who wins? Is it that black and white?

The Eternal Contest

For those unfamiliar with these terms, in the political world, a “hack” is someone hands-on, interested in strategizing and deploying tactics like a military general on a campaign. They enjoy a good fight, unafraid of getting down in the mud with their opponents and battling hand-to-hand. They like style, have tact, and pride themselves on serving the proverbial kool-aid to mobilize their base of supporters.

A “wonk” is someone who is more cerebral, interested in good ideas and evidence-based policy. They are intellectuals in their own right, well-versed in the principles of ideology. They believe the survival and advancement of the movement is their sole charge and prerogative. They pride themselves on being trusted advisors, believing a long-term vision will ultimately win out over ad hoc tactics.

And for as long as anyone can remember, these two archetypes have set themselves to the purpose of forever mistrusting the other. Think Kissinger and Brzezinski. Anne-Marie Slaughter and Hillary Clinton. Roland Paris and Gerald Butts.

A Study in Scarlet

This is why Andrew Coyne’s piece in The Walrus misses the mark on how to save the Conservative Party. Coyne mourns the perceived death of conservatism under the Harper government — the caving to boutique tax credits and corporate bailouts. According to him, these policies deviated from the traditional conservative ideology espoused by grassroots Conservative Party members, such as small government and flat tax cuts. .

However, running on an intellectual platform that defends a return to classic liberalism doesn’t resonate with the average voter. If you are seeking to activate all of the enlightened small-c conservative out there (hint: they are few), you are going after a fairly niche market.

This is not to critique the tenets of classical liberalism. In fact, they should be revived, but not in an ivory tower. What is fundamentally missing in the piece and what Andrew Coyne will never understand is that you cannot divorce intellectualism from political reality without political cost. Just ask Michael Chong.

At the same time, personality without substance does not conquer the day. For decades, Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government have pursued strategies at the behest of highly vocal interest groups that involve short-term fixes and policy announcements made on the fly. With the Premier’s popularity at an all-time low, in 2018, the electorate is poised to do what they do best in a democracy: reward those with good ideas and punish those without.

Similarly, those who think that the leadership of the Conservative Party and the country can be achieved at the hands of a few good strategists will quickly learn that the demands of leadership and governance require vision and informed decision-making. Winning a few battles against your opponents does not score you points in the war for hearts and minds.

What is certain is that the conflict between hacks and wonks inevitably leads to weakness in any political party. A party that isn’t good at selling its ideas is no better off than a party with nothing to sell. When you pit hacks against wonks, everyone loses.

A Marriage of True Minds

Conversely, if your organization can build an environment where hacks and wonks can co-exist and even thrive, you become a formidable force — whether that’s the business, political, or social world in which you operate.

But how does one get the Montagues and Capulets of the modern age to see eye to eye? How do you engineer a marriage of true minds?

First off, both must be empowered to provide their valuable insights and direction into the leadership of your organization. Make sure both archetypes have a voice at your table and in your war room. Learn to mesh those ideas and strategies to help achieve your ultimate goals, whether that’s campaign victories, business expansion, or fundraising targets.

Second, facilitate cross-pollination of expertise. Help your wonks understand how and why strategy and tactics can be important to helping them get their ideas to the table and into practice. Mentor your hacks into seeing the bigger picture and understand how evidence-based, well-crafted ideas can help their organization succeed.

Third, encourage mutual respect. Readers may well roll their eyes at this seemingly mundane idea, but you’d be surprised how often wonks and hacks will shut the door on each other unless someone is there to keep the doors wide open. Give your wonks and hacks opportunities to openly prove their value to your organization, earn the respect of their colleagues, and great working relationships will follow.

At the end of the day, you will no longer have hacks and wonks. You will have a formidable team of what Machiavelli would only describe as true virtuosos.

TORONTO – (May 4, 2017) – The Ivey Business School at Western University, and Navigator, Canada’s leading high-stakes communications firm, are pleased to announce a groundbreaking executive development partnership that will bring together Canada’s prominent business academics and communication experts in a proprietary reputation risk management and recovery program for senior executives.

“We are very excited about the power of the partnership with Navigator,” said Mark Healy, Ivey’s Executive Director of Executive Education.

“Managing reputation risk is now a core competency for any business leader. This program will prepare executives in a manner that goes beyond the classroom and puts our executives on the front lines of managing risk in a real-time, immersive setting with Canada’s leading experts in communication and reputation risk,” Healy added.

Reputation risk has a material impact on a company’s performance and position in its industry. The Ivey-Navigator program uses simulations and case studies to prepare executives with the strategies and tactics to plan, respond and recover from any situation that could adversely affect their company’s reputation. Participants will be instructed by a team of professors, business leaders and communications experts.

“In 20 years of working with Canada’s top corporations and CEOs, we have never seen as many business leaders and board directors identifying reputation risk as a leading business challenge,” said Jaime Watt, executive chairman of Navigator. “Our partnership with Ivey—the first program of its kind in Canada—will bring together experts and academics to provide an intensive readiness and assessment program to manage reputation risk.”

The program features practical exercises in which participants engage in the planning, response and recovery during a situation where reputation is threatened. Participants will work through simulations and case studies from a variety of stakeholder perspectives. This program equips participants to manage reputation-defining moments in order to build trust with the stakeholders that matter most.

“An organization’s reputation can be thrust unexpectedly into the spotlight by a rogue employee, a Freudian slip of the tongue, bad leadership, a major organizational shift or challenging business results. This program provides a ground-breaking approach to preparing executives for those major moments when their organization’s reputation is on the line,” said Gerard Seijts, professor of organizational behaviour and executive director of the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at Ivey.

Starting in fall 2017, Ivey and Navigator will provide a five-day comprehensive risk management program for business leaders delivered at the St. Andrew’s Club and Conference Centre in Toronto.

For more information: https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/executive/our-programs/corporate-reputation-management/

Mark Healy
Ivey Business School
416-797-9666

Darryl Konynenbelt
Navigator Ltd.
647-203-4340

About Navigator

Navigator is Canada’s leading high-stakes public strategy firm retained by clients when they can’t afford to lose. Navigator was created by public affairs and government relations practitioners who recognized a market need for an organization that truly understood how to develop a winning, overarching plan, bringing together research, planning, stakeholder outreach, communications and government relations tactics. Navigator has grown to become a diverse firm with consultants from a variety of backgrounds including journalism, public opinion research, politics, marketing and law.

Navigator serves clients from offices in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Ottawa and London, UK.

About the Ivey Business School, Western University

The Ivey Business School (www.ivey.ca) at Western University is Canada’s leading provider of relevant, innovative and comprehensive business education. Drawing on extensive research and business experience, Ivey faculty provides the best classroom experience, equipping graduates with the skills and capabilities they need to tackle the leadership challenges in today’s complex business world. Ivey offers world-renowned undergraduate and graduate degree programs as well as Executive Development at campuses in London (Ontario), Toronto and Hong Kong.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Navigator
647-203-4340
dkonynenbelt@navltd.com

Ivey
416-797-9666
mhealy@ivey.ca