Attack Ads

There has been a lot of buzz in CDN politics in recent days over the new Conservative "attack" ads aimed squarely at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Most mainstream media commentary, I think it is fair to say, has been critical of the ads, while Conservatives and a relative handful of others have said they are fair game.

I am not a specialist in advertising per se, but I understand the basic strategic intent of ads such as these. Like all ads, they are designed to influence opinion and shape perception of whatever the object of the ad may be. In most cases, the intent is to leave a positive impression of the object of the ad. In these cases, however, the intent is precisely the opposite. The intent of attack ads is to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the audience - to confirm and amplify the most negative suspicions certain undecided segments of the population might have about whatever or whomever is the focus of the ad. Importantly, perhaps most importantly in the eyse of some, is the proven fact that when done well, attack ads work. The relatively recent ads attacking Stephane Dion are a clear case in point.

So, in that context, here are a few thoughts on and around this latest round of anti-Iggy attack advertising and its effectiveness:

1. Yes, attack ads work, but does that really mean we should use them? While they may help win campaigns in the short term, they also breed deep cynicism in the electorate over the long term. Ulltimately, no political party is well served by voter apathy and cynicism.

2. The angry, sarcastic style and tone of these ads captures the voice of the Tory stalwart, who would never vote for Iggy in a million years. In so doing. it amplifies the most negative popular perceptions of the Conservatives and their leader Stephen Harper - crass, mean-spiritted, overly competitive, selfish, etc...

3. On the flip side, the ads fail to take a more persuasive, questioning, thoughtful tone - in other words, a tone that would better resonate with Canadians harbouring legitimate questions about the loyalty and commitment of this leader-in-waiting. It leaves me wondering exactly who it is that fits the audience segment these ads were designed for?

In the end, only time will tell. People, whose opinions I respect, have shared with me strong arguments both in favour and opposed to these ads. What do you think? Will these ads be successful? Will they fail? Either way, should we be striving for a higher tone in our discourse that does away with these kinds of ads?

Please share your thoughts.

Being About Something

Earlier this week a former colleague of mine from the Hill "shared" with me via Facebook this clip of Justin Trudeau.

At the time, I noted that I found Trudeau's "theatrical, alliteration-laden monologues hard to connect with and more than a little cringe-worthy."

Here is what others had to say:

"I think there's something not quite right there...creepy" - Carolyn from Ottawa

"No substance there. yik." - Melissa from Toronto

Our discomfort aside, the bigger point is this: What is Justin Trudeau about? What does he stand for? What is he fighting for, really? Why should Canadians listen to him, and - more importantly - follow him?

Trudeau, Dominic Leblanc and other young Canadian political leaders are working overtime these days to steal pages from the Barack Obama political playbook. But while they appear to have read (perhaps over-read) the chapter on poetic oratory, it seems they may have missed the main point of his storied rise to power. What set Barack Obama and his campaign apart was not first and foremost his elegant speech giving, but rather the substance and meaning of what his candidacy and campaign was about. Obama was and is about something. Call it change. Call it hope. Call it unity. Call it what you will, but if you ask most Americans who voted for him they will tell you exactly what it was about Barack Obama that led them to cast a ballot in his favour. And this much is for certain: it was not his name. It was not his father's name, and, in most cases I would argue, it wasn't even his lyrical acumen.

Over the next few weeks, members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will be weighing the choice of a new leader for their party. And as the candidates work to secure the support of party members across the province, here's hoping they read the full Obama playbook, not just the chapter on crafting great stump texts. Here's hoping they focus first on answering the question that is really on the minds of Ontario PC party members: What are you about?

So, what do you think? What is it you look for in a leader? What (or who) do we need right now, leading our cities, our provinces and our country? What do the leaders we have today really stand for, and does that resonate with you?

Please share your thoughts.

Bailouts: When is enough going to be enough?

So much has been written about the bailout packages governments around the globe are offering to failing businesses. Already we have seen billions upon billions of dollars offered to failed or failing businesses in the financial sector and the auto sector. More recently, we've heard calls for massive aid to airlines, broadcasters and even notoriously underperforming telecommunications companies.

I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this issue with friends and followers in social media land. Here is a snapshot of the perspectives I've heard:

"I keep saying this to anyone who will listen - it's not fun, but they call it a market CORRECTION for a reason. If we use the public coffers to artificially sustain what's clearly NOT working, it's just throwing good money after bad. I'd like to take Smith's invisible hand and smack some folks with it ... starting with the CAW, then maybe move to Queen's Park next." - Tracy in Ottawa

"Let's all not hold our breath about this scheme [Chrysler bailout] working." - Joe in Ottawa

"It's not about saving GM - it's about saving "x" number of employees, "x" being larger than most of the companies we all work for, although no-one is noticing that "x" is still a miniscule fraction of Canada's population.

Nor are most people noticing that the "x" employees have enjoyed very high wages "y" for many years of assembly line labour that would have been done almost for free by robots (like at Honda), had "x" employees' union not demurred because robots don't pay dues.

By the way, "x" is just 12,500, and "y" is $34/hour, nearly four times Ontario's minimum wage for what must surely be considered minimum-wage work.

It's instructive to compare "y" at $34/hour with the average annual income in Zambia of $380/YEAR... one decent overtime shift in Oshawa. GM hasn't thought about having cars assembled in Zambia, partly because of NAFTA tariff barriers, but mostly out of fear of the union representing those "x" Canadian workers and their US counterparts." - Norm in Ottawa

There are plenty of understandable reasons for engaging in this sort of economic life support strategy - most significantly, because if the US does it, every other nation will need to as well in order to keep a foothold in that industry. Not to play the game would be a fast route to seeing entire industries pack up and leave a nation, or so the argument goes.

My question: where does it end? If we continue to apply this sort of life support strategy for our failing industries, what criteria will we use to determine when enough is enough? Why is Chrysler and Air Canada more deserving of our financial support than Nortel or Abitibi? I fear we have initiated a slippery slope which may preserve a quality of life for a relative few for the shortest of periods, at the expense of longer term, broader prosperity built upon a renewed, sustainable, competitive and innovative industrial foundation.

What do you think?

Update: Cast your vote on my LinkedIn poll

Update #2: OR! Cast your vote right here on this blog (see righthand panel)

Welcome to Principled Exchange!

Welcome to my new blog!

At the encouragement of my friend and social media guru, Joe Thornley, I have launched my own blog.

As you can see from the description above, this is my own personal blog. It is a blog about the ideas and issues on the minds of people everyday. Its about the news we read, but more importantly it is about the ideas that shape the news we read.

It is an outlet for my perspective, but more importantly it is a forum for many perspectives. At this blog, we believe in the power of iron sharpening iron. We will ignite the very brightest insights when bright people like you share your point of view with the rest of us, and we engage in what i hope will be a dynamic and fruitful dialogue.

I'll be posting some food for thought in the coming days. Right now, I'd like to hear from you. What do you think the world should be talking about today?

Let's start!