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.