MS: Yes…sure.
CR: Political leaders need to be bound to their sup- porters…very closely connected. So one of the first big parts of “definition” is securing the trust of sup- porters – the movement – they must believe in their Leader. If they lose faith they lose purpose and then challenges occur - no challenges can be entertained. What both Harper and Layton had going into this race was the overwhelming support of their base. They supported them and were motivated to get to the polls for them, and to work for them.
CR: If we look at Stephen Harper’s strength over the long-term, it can be said that he went into this campaign with more of his supporters enthusias- tic about voting for him. Obama’s campaign often talks about the enthusiasm gap that existed on the other side. Certainly one can argue that the Lib- eral Party wasn’t 100 percent behind their Leader, Michael Ignatieff, and their own corps were not motivated to get out and absolutely support him. A big part of that relates to how a Leader defines themself to the Party.
RS: Yes, I certainly think that polls would back that up. Mr. Ignatieff did not have more than about for- ty-five to fifty percent of support among Liberal voters.
I think in retrospect, not having a contested
leadership race in 2008 was extremely damaging for Michael Ignatieff. It doesn’t mean that every- thing would have been different if there had been a contested race, but I think the way that the race unfolded… the fact that he never participated in a leadership race where he was able to receive more than forty-five percent… which is what he received in the final ballot in Montreal, was dam- aging. There was no ‘rallying the base’ and defining themselves for the election.
CR: We talked about the positive articulation of defining yourself, then there’s the reverse, which is not letting other people define you – meaning the Party Leader. Mark, what’s your perspective on a Leader not letting themselves be defined by their own Party, other Parties, or the media?
MS: If you want to look at the root of the bad things that happened in the last two elections to the Liberals, it’s related to the millions and millions of dollars in pre-writ advertising spent by other parties to help define their Leaders. Millions and millions of dollars spent telling Canadians - here’s a person who is “this” and “that” …over and over
and over. Leaders, parties, politicians believe that, as long as they’re getting a message out through the media, it’s enough… and it’s not. There are fewer people watching the news, fewer people reading newspapers, there’s still a lot of people watching tv commercials during hockey games.
CR: And Survivor and The Amazing Race.
MS: Yes. I look at myself, what do I watch on tele- vision? I watch sports. Television advertising still has an impact on me.
RS: Which is expensive ad-wise. MS: But they work. RS: Yes.
RS: It’s very frustrating, obviously in retrospect as a Liberal, given that there was a solemn swear made after the Dion election in 2008 that we would never again let ourselves be defined by others, and yet the Liberal Party and the people surrounding Mr. Ignatieff allowed the exact same thing to hap- pen that happened to Mr. Dion. In some ways it was even more successful with Mr. Ignatieff than it was with Mr. Dion. Part of the challenge was they didn’t have a clear brand for Mr. Ignatieff that they needed to roll out right after he assumed the leadership. The second thing, which is the bigger thing, is they didn’t have the resources to counter the ads when they rolled out, whether it be a posi- tive introduction or a counter-strike. It’s was very frustrating as a Liberal given that we knew what was coming. It was foreseeable from a mile away and we sat there, and largely took it, and presented back to the Canadian people a lame spin that “Ca- nadians don’t care”, “Canadians aren’t impressed” by this, “Canadians aren’t interested” in this, all of which, obviously, was hog wash.
CR: On “definition”, we’ve said that Leaders need to define themselves to their own party and be bound to their own supporters. It is incumbent upon Leaders to define themselves to the public using tactics like paid advertising, and you cannot ever allow other parties to define you first. I think that is the second big lesson. What rules the day? Is it the process story or is it the message story?
MS: You would always like to think it’s the ‘message story’ but unfortunately, more often than not, it’s the ‘process story’. I challenged many political activists during the course of this campaign, and even after
June 2011 | Campaigns & Elections 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62