I have no idea who will win the federal Liberal leadership race.
But here’s one thing I do know: the winner will be the person who convinces Liberal delegates that he or she can beat Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On the surface that might sound like an obvious statement. Isn’t that what politics is supposed to be all about – beating your opponent?
Well actually it shouldn’t be.
Politics should be more than just a politicized version of American Idol.
Elections, after all, aren’t popularity contests. They determine who will govern our society.
Ideally then, politics should be about debating ideas and putting forward new visions and enacting policies that will benefit the Canadian people.
But today these things don’t seem to matter.
Today all that matters is winning.
Michael Ignatieff, for instance, is currently conceded to be the front-runner in the Liberal leadership race.
Why?
Is it because of his policies or because of his stands on key issues?
Nope.
It’s because he’s seen as a “winner”.
As National Post columnist John Ivison recently wrote, “Ignatieff is liked, if not well-liked, by a large proportion of the Liberal caucus because they think he can beat Stephen Harper and help them win back the best job they are ever likely to have.”
The problem with this strategy is that perceived “winners” don’t always win.
Former Liberal leader John Turner, for instance, was a winner who didn’t win. So was former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Ernie Eves.
And more recently there was Paul Martin.
Martin was supposed to be a winner too. In fact, soon after he took control of the Liberal Party, media pundits were predicting he would sweep to power with the largest majority in Canada’s history.
Of course, it didn’t happen.
He was ultimately defeated by Harper, a politician ironically enough many in the media had declared a political “loser”.
Harper, we were told, was too “scary” too “extreme” or too “boring.”
In fact, prior to the last federal election some panicky Conservatives were even pushing the idea of dumping Harper in favour of a more “electable” leader like Bernard Lord
So why did Harper the “loser” end up beating Martin the “winner”.
Simple.
Harper and the Conservative Party managed to convince Canadian voters that he would bring about better, more honest, more accountable government.
In other words Harper won because he had a platform Canadians liked.
They didn’t care about his personality. They didn’t care about whether or not he was likable. And they didn’t care that the media didn’t think he was a winner.
Winning elections, in short, isn’t about getting people to like you; it’s about getting people to agree with you.
This is a lesson political parties of all ideological stripes should heed.
If they spent more time on developing a coherent set of popular policies and less time trying to decide who fits the winner category, they would likely be more successful at the polls.
I dare say even cranky Simon Cowell would approve.
Gerry is often sought out by the media to provide commentary and analysis on communication tactics and he has appeared regularly on public affairs programs, such CTV News channel's Power Play, TVO's The Agenda and CBC radio's The Current.
He has a regular column discussing political strategy in the Hill Times and his articles have appeared in major newspapers including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star. He's also author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.
Gerry has given presentations to such groups as the Fraser Institute, the Liberty Summer Seminar, Civitas and the Alberta Law Society.
He currently resides in Oakville, Ontario.
- PM’s reluctant start to a political career - Thursday January 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm
- Dion’s Hidden Agenda - Monday February 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm
- Time for political vice tax - Wednesday February 13, 2008 at 10:44 am
