Can't beat honest pandering
Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Someone was describing the contrast between Stephen Harper and Paul Martin the other day as a matter of the former being "cool," whereas the latter was "hot." I can only assume he was using those words in their McLuhanite sense, as I doubt even their fiercest partisans would describe their man that way in more colloquial terms.
They do make a study in contrasts, however, and this election is, at least in part, a referendum on the two men's personal and political styles. Indeed, if there is one reason the Tories have caught up to the Liberals in the opinion polls it is because Mr. Harper, much to many people's astonishment, has been closing the gap with Mr. Martin.
This was not supposed to happen. Leadership was to be the Liberals' ace in the hole: though much diminished from the colossus who once bestrode the political world, the personable Mr. Martin was supposed to enjoy a wide advantage in public approval over the brooding Mr. Harper. Yet the evidence is incontrovertible. SES Research, for example, have been compiling what they call a Leadership Index Score since the campaign began, combining voters' impressions of the leaders in the three categories of trustworthiness, competence and vision for Canada.
In the first week of the campaign, Mr. Martin's score soared along in the 80s, while Mr. Harper remained mired at around 50. By Christmas, the two men were more or less tied. From a thirty-point gap to parity, in the space of less than three weeks. Something is going on.
In part, this may be put down to the steady drizzle of promises Mr. Harper made through the first half of the campaign, a series of cash bribes -- sorry, tax credits -- aimed squarely at middle class voters. Some of these were large and expensive -- the GST cut comes to mind -- while some, such as the tax credit for children's sports, were transparently symbolic. But they all encouraged voters to believe, in the words of that ghastly pollsters' question, that Mr. Harper "cares about people like me." It certainly wasn't his sunny personality.
Yet I think it is precisely Mr. Harper's personality, or lack of same, that has been working to his advantage -- if not on its own, then in contrast with Mr. Martin's. The Prime Minister is, by every conventional measure, the superior political performer. He is, for starters, supremely likeable. He speaks with passion and conviction, whatever he happens to be saying. He seems genuinely delighted to be wherever he is, all the time. He emotes well, in the style political consultants recommend. And in any conventional campaign, he'd wipe the floor with his opponent.
That is, were he up against an opponent who did the same. So long as the public is presented with a choice between two actors -- for that is what politicians are -- they will choose the one who gives the best performance, at least by the standards of the day. For that is the criterion experience will have taught them to apply. However false and mawkish it may be, if false and mawkish is the only thing on offer, the prize will go to the falsest and most mawkish.
But let one of the participants refuse to perform -- or perhaps, perform in a different way -- and what seemed so impressive before suddenly looks showy and empty. When Vaclav Havel became president of Czechoslovakia, the effect on political rhetoric was instantaneous: the plain, honest words of his first nationwide address made other politicians' speeches sound tinny by comparison.
The Charlottetown referendum offers another example. None of the Yes side's portfolio of slick, expensively produced ads -- remember the baseball player? -- was a match for that single still photo of "Brian's Used Car Garage" that one or other of the No campaigns came up with. In terms of production values, it was somewhere south of the cable access station. But by the end of the campaign, the Yes side were beseeching their high-priced talent to come up with ads that were as amateurish.
I don't want to overstate this. Mr. Harper is not Havel, nor has his campaign been especially amateurish. Indeed, it's been rather too professional for my taste, in all its careful pandering to targeted constituencies. But it is, if you will, honest pandering. Mr. Harper does not pretend to be anything he is not. If handing out cash is what the job requires, that is what he will do. But no one says he has to like it, or look like he does.
And so when Mr. Martin does his song and dance routine -- rounding on Gilles Duceppe, for example, in the second debate, in a show of patriotic defiance -- it is instantly dismissed as cheap showboating, where in another campaign it might have been boffo. It's not his fault, really. He's out there on stage, giving his all, just at the moment his opponent has torn away the backdrop.
Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Someone was describing the contrast between Stephen Harper and Paul Martin the other day as a matter of the former being "cool," whereas the latter was "hot." I can only assume he was using those words in their McLuhanite sense, as I doubt even their fiercest partisans would describe their man that way in more colloquial terms.
They do make a study in contrasts, however, and this election is, at least in part, a referendum on the two men's personal and political styles. Indeed, if there is one reason the Tories have caught up to the Liberals in the opinion polls it is because Mr. Harper, much to many people's astonishment, has been closing the gap with Mr. Martin.
This was not supposed to happen. Leadership was to be the Liberals' ace in the hole: though much diminished from the colossus who once bestrode the political world, the personable Mr. Martin was supposed to enjoy a wide advantage in public approval over the brooding Mr. Harper. Yet the evidence is incontrovertible. SES Research, for example, have been compiling what they call a Leadership Index Score since the campaign began, combining voters' impressions of the leaders in the three categories of trustworthiness, competence and vision for Canada.
In the first week of the campaign, Mr. Martin's score soared along in the 80s, while Mr. Harper remained mired at around 50. By Christmas, the two men were more or less tied. From a thirty-point gap to parity, in the space of less than three weeks. Something is going on.
In part, this may be put down to the steady drizzle of promises Mr. Harper made through the first half of the campaign, a series of cash bribes -- sorry, tax credits -- aimed squarely at middle class voters. Some of these were large and expensive -- the GST cut comes to mind -- while some, such as the tax credit for children's sports, were transparently symbolic. But they all encouraged voters to believe, in the words of that ghastly pollsters' question, that Mr. Harper "cares about people like me." It certainly wasn't his sunny personality.
Yet I think it is precisely Mr. Harper's personality, or lack of same, that has been working to his advantage -- if not on its own, then in contrast with Mr. Martin's. The Prime Minister is, by every conventional measure, the superior political performer. He is, for starters, supremely likeable. He speaks with passion and conviction, whatever he happens to be saying. He seems genuinely delighted to be wherever he is, all the time. He emotes well, in the style political consultants recommend. And in any conventional campaign, he'd wipe the floor with his opponent.
That is, were he up against an opponent who did the same. So long as the public is presented with a choice between two actors -- for that is what politicians are -- they will choose the one who gives the best performance, at least by the standards of the day. For that is the criterion experience will have taught them to apply. However false and mawkish it may be, if false and mawkish is the only thing on offer, the prize will go to the falsest and most mawkish.
But let one of the participants refuse to perform -- or perhaps, perform in a different way -- and what seemed so impressive before suddenly looks showy and empty. When Vaclav Havel became president of Czechoslovakia, the effect on political rhetoric was instantaneous: the plain, honest words of his first nationwide address made other politicians' speeches sound tinny by comparison.
The Charlottetown referendum offers another example. None of the Yes side's portfolio of slick, expensively produced ads -- remember the baseball player? -- was a match for that single still photo of "Brian's Used Car Garage" that one or other of the No campaigns came up with. In terms of production values, it was somewhere south of the cable access station. But by the end of the campaign, the Yes side were beseeching their high-priced talent to come up with ads that were as amateurish.
I don't want to overstate this. Mr. Harper is not Havel, nor has his campaign been especially amateurish. Indeed, it's been rather too professional for my taste, in all its careful pandering to targeted constituencies. But it is, if you will, honest pandering. Mr. Harper does not pretend to be anything he is not. If handing out cash is what the job requires, that is what he will do. But no one says he has to like it, or look like he does.
And so when Mr. Martin does his song and dance routine -- rounding on Gilles Duceppe, for example, in the second debate, in a show of patriotic defiance -- it is instantly dismissed as cheap showboating, where in another campaign it might have been boffo. It's not his fault, really. He's out there on stage, giving his all, just at the moment his opponent has torn away the backdrop.