Tuesday, May 3, 2011

AN UNCERTAIN TRUMPET - - WHY THE LIBERALS LOST... AND HOW WE CAN WIN AGAIN

I wrote the following piece six years ago. I still think it has relevance for our future as Liberals

At the end of 2005 Canada was an economic leader among the world’s richest nations. In March 2005 the International Monetary Fund praised Canada for the fastest growth rate and strongest budget position among the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Italy and Canada. While assisting allies in suppressing terrorism, Canada avoided joining the war in Iraq. Issues of redress to aboriginal peoples and those discriminated in the past were being resolved by negotiation and, apart from a relatively small scale government contracting scandal in Quebec there was little to trouble the Canadian public. In short, Canada was successful both at home and abroad.

So how is it that the incumbent party, running for re-election in a time of peace and prosperity, lost? And lost, not to a party historically rooted in Canadian ideals, but rather to a party radically opposed to the (highly successful) status quo.

Stephen Harper, now Canada’s Prime Minister, is no Joe Clark. Mr. Harper spent his early political years on the far right wing of Canadian politics. He called for Canada to join the war in Iraq and described Canada as a Northern European welfare state “in the worst sense of the word”. Other Conservative MP’s have similarly extreme views. Harold Albrecht, MP for Kitchener-Conestoga claimed same sex-marriage could wipe out society in just one generation. Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke said the beheading of hostages in Iraq was “absolutely no different” from abortion. Ms. Gallant wrote to constituents telling them Christian phobia was taking over Canada and warning of coming persecution of Christians in Canada (this in a country where Christians make up 84% of the population and are an overwhelming majority of MP’s, MPP’s, judges, civil servants and police). The point here is not to ridicule the Conservatives for their views but rather to point out how extreme, odd and radical those views are. For such a political party to win in a nation not beset by extraordinary problems raises the question of what did the incumbent do wrong? How could the Liberals lose to people like Cheryl Gallant?

The Liberals lost because people did not know what, if anything, the Liberals stand for. The problem is not that people know the Liberal message and reject it (that may be the NDP’s problem) - - rather people have no idea what Liberals stand for and so think the Liberals are too weak to govern.

In the 2006 election the Conservatives focussed on a very limited, and very clear, message - - change, trust, values. Everything they said was related to, and spoke of, that message. The Liberals, by contrast, talked of specific issues - - the underlying message had to be inferred from the Liberal position, on say, child care. Voters did not, or could not, infer a message that way. The caricature of the Prime Minister as Mr. Dithers was unfair. But this caricature stuck because, absent a unifying message, Liberals appears to be dealing with everything ad hoc.

And because the Conservatives had a theme, they sounded consistent. Worse, having a theme when the Liberals had not, the Conservatives set the parameters of public debate - - values related to government contracting, gay marriage and punishment of criminals. Values, in the last election did not deal with poverty, social justice or to not giving tax breaks to already wealthy Canadians.

During the election I heard a leading Liberal explain to party workers that it was hard for Liberals to get a message out because the Liberal party position is usually “yet, but”. Issues are so complex that we cannot take a simple position - - what a misconception! The implementation of simple concepts can be hard - - murder is wrong but books are written on the laws of homicide - - but simple concepts are simple. The Liberal message must be clear, simple and understood.

Voters must know the Liberal party stands for something and what that something is. “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle” (1 Corinthians 14: 7-9). If the Liberal party is to avoid a Conservative majority in the next election, it must offer a clear choice. To win we must:

- define our message

- attack our opponents

- defend our leader

- inspire our voters

These seem to be obvious points but they were overlooked in the recent past.

What is the Liberal choice and how does it differ from Conservatives? Winston Churchill set out the core of Liberal priorities when he served as Minister of Social Welfare in the Liberal Asquith government in 1911. “To raise people up from poverty. To reconcile private interests with public rights. To attack monopoly. To reward enterprise, but not with untrammelled privilege and preference. To exalt the individual over ruler or regulation. To expand freedom at home and abroad. This is our liberalism. This is the signature of our society.” As a summary of Liberal values this is as good a statement as any. The Conservatives and Liberals hold very different views of the country. Liberals support shared responsibility, shared opportunity and a fair chance for everyone to choose how they want to live. Conservatives favour concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves, economically, but socially Conservatives favour more control over the choices people are allowed to make. Liberals have a message - - freedom from want, freedom to choose, freedom to be what you want to be. Now, this is just one way to frame the Liberal message, but it is a simple, clear and concise message that explains the Liberal policy on everything from gay rights to child care to taxation of capital gains. And it illustrates just what Liberal values are and lets Canadians see Liberals are consistent and fit to lead.

The Conservatives focus on values was very successful in the last election but it was focussed on a bizarre and tiny set of issues - - gay rights, a small scale (and despite the noise, it really was small scale) corruption scandal in Quebec, gun ownership and, to a lesser degree, abortion. Because values and trust were framed by the Conservatives, Liberals looked weak. Yet, in truth, gay marriages was not a real issue - - it is clear the Courts will mandate it under the Constitution; and the number of Canadians affected is trivial. Gun control was also more apparent than real - - Liberals were not taking guns from hunters and Conservatives were not allowing widespread ownership of handguns. Abortion, while a simmering issue, was never openly addressed by the Conservatives and the corruption scandal, ultimately, is being dealt with by the police and the Courts. The “values” issues raised by the Conservatives were mainly smoke and mirrors.

But Liberals do have real values that affect Canada as a whole; and here the debate favours the Liberal party. By example, poverty is a values issues; health care is a values issue; taxation of capital gains is a values issue; treatment of First Nations is a values issue. On all these issues the Liberal position is far more popular, far more Canadian, then the Conservative position. If put clearly to Canadians, Liberals will win on values. It is worth nothing that Americans, who elected George Bush, when asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the US said “greed ad materialism” (33%) and “poverty and economic justice” (31%) twice as much as gay marriage and abortion (Zogby Internation 11/12/04 Press Release). Liberals must broaden the values debate.

Conservatives will try to keep values as their own preserve by references to G-d. In his victory speech Stephen Harper said “G-d Bless Canada”, clearly acknowledging support from the religious right and claiming, implicitly, the moral high ground.

Liberals do not need to hid their faith. Most Canadians have strong religious beliefs and Liberals gain nothing by pretending that faith does not inform their views. This does not mean turning the Liberal party into a religious organization. But, it is possible to express personal faith and convictions about public policy while respecting the pluralism of Canadian democracy.

So, in dealing with minimum sentencing and progressive taxation, Liberals can show their faith (if it be so), illustrative Liberal values and shows that the Conservatives cannot suggest that G-d is a member by citing Luke 12:48:

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

On “Conservative” issues, Liberals can and should speak. Liberals should say the rights of hunters be respected. Liberals who hunt should let the public know - - banning handguns does not suggest shotguns will be taken away from people in the Ottawa Valley. On abortion Liberals should recognize the moral ambiguity and say abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Policies to make it possible for children to be raised by their mothers combat abortion and promote a real freedom of choice. The Liberal commitment to political inclusion, expansion of economic opportunity and fair compensation for work done all speak to “values”.

Liberals must not be shy. Liberals cannot hide their light under a bushel. Negative advertising, if accurate and not personal, are effective and highlights real policy differences. In the last election Liberals failed, until late in the campaign, to point out the very real flaws in the Conservative’s policy. Negative campaigning, as the Conservatives proved, works - - so long as it is seen as fair, factual and being about these issues and not personal failings. Attacks on Liberal leaders, and they will come, must be met immediately and strongly. Timid calls for an apology will not fly - - Liberals must roar like lions and fight back like the tigers they are. Liberals must close the gap on the very issues where they are seen as weakest. For example, Conservatives are seen strong on law and order - - Liberals should focus on that very issue to show (a) Liberals have view, policy and solution and (b) the Conservatives solution is ungenerous, flawed and inadequate.

Liberals can win the next election. But we cannot win it unless Canadians know what Liberals stand for. An uncertain trumpet will not rally our forces - - we should let forth a powerful blast that will take down the walls set up by the Conservatives.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you believe today what you wrote back then, then I am puzzled as to why you became a candidate this time around in the first place.

Nothing has changed.Obviously....

ridenrain said...

So if the members or candidates don't driver the leadership of the Liberal party, who does?

Anonymous said...

The liberals lost in 2006 because they were defending 13 years of their record, incumbency and the scandals that naturally come with it.

The left-progressive vote naturally gravitated towards the NDP this time around.

Anointing Justin Trudeau as the party leader will not save the Liberals. Perhaps the Liberals can't be saved. Let the centrist wing find it's home in the Conservatives and the left vote go to the NDP.

The Mound of Sound said...

My thoughts exactly, James. The Liberals need a powerful, coherent vision that speaks to the challenges our country and people are facing and those that will come in the near future, a vision that resonates with the Canadian people.

Ignatieff had no vision. He was left to practice 'mercantile politics' - tossing out a bauble her and there in hopes that voters would bite. The man was a walking disaster.

The good news is the bad news. The looming challenges this country will face are not going away. Despite that, Harper's agenda is inconsistent with solving them. Jack won't tackle them either.

James C Morton said...

I see the Liberal Party has a great deal of valuable and useful policy work -- better than the others -- but we need to make that clear and something Canadians can see. And we have to recognize that connecting to Canadians requires making simple ideas simple.

Anonymous said...

Surely you were aware of the geographical divisions of the Lib party. It is about trust.

Ignatieff didn't even bother going to Calgary. In five weeks not once did he go to the fourth largest city in Canada. It sends a terrible message.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:32 AM:

Liberals haven't elected an MP in Calgary since Trudeau-mania '68.

Ignatieff was too busy defending traditional Liberal turf in downtown Toronto instead of venturing out to ridings where he could spend limited resources.

For example, in a future election, when you see Conservatives making desperate campaign stops in Calgary and Edmonton while trotting out past leaders like Preston Manning, you'll know that they are in deep trouble.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:39

I understand all that. But, it was clear before the election that they were not going to win seats in Calgary and Alberta or for that matter in Quebec off the island. The election call made no sense.

If the Libs feared a Harper majority then why did they call an election?

The Rat said...

"apart from a relatively small scale government contracting scandal in Quebec"

That statement alone shows how out of touch, how arrogant, and how hopelessly finished the Liberals are. After 3 elections where your numbers continued to go don you still don't understand the visceral disgust so many Canadians feel towards the entrenched corruption of the Liberal party. We in the West have lots of other reasons to despise Liberals, but the ongoing addition of reasons for each region finally took their toll.

You, Mr. Morton, sound like a decent and thoughtful person. Unfortunately you are not the Liberal party.

rabbit said...

During the Trudeau era, the Liberal party decided it didn't need Alberta.

They basically traded Alberta seats for Quebec seats. A good deal, as Quebec had more than three times the population.

Time and gain again since then, I've heard the Liberals claim at the beginning of each election that their Canada included Alberta, only to have them fall back to demonizing Alberta as the election draws to a close. This election was the only one I can remember where it didn't happen.

But something went wrong. Population and economic power shifted west. And Alberta alienation -- and bitterness -- over the Liberals spread to the other prairie province, and to much of British Columbia.

In the end, the Liberals shut themselves out of most of western Canada, 30% of the population of the country.

Rotterdam said...

Warren Kinsella ridiculed Stockwell Day views on creation with a Barney doll. Jean Chretien ridiculed Nuns last week at a Toronto rally, because they dared to defend the unborn child. Jean Chretien banned all prayer at a 9/11 memorial, and boasted about it. Paul Martin made "unlimited abortion" central to his 04,06 campaign.

Raymond J. De Souza said in todays Post " the denunciation of Social Conservatives meant driving out the practicing Christian vote".
Is it no wonder that people of faith, various faiths, I may add, have gravitated to a party that treats them with respect.

When you see what happens in a abortion, Gallants views, undiplomatic as they seem, are not far off the mark.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Morton, your unwillingness to acknowlege liberal corruptness is exactly why your party is left in tatters. The liberals feeling of entitlement to leadership is part of the party's demise. The liberals are stuck in the past with inflated ego's, but...the country has spoken and liberals should listen and get with the times. You didn't lose because of Iggy, you lost because your party had 13yrs of power to keep promises they made, yet they never did.The liberal party can't be trusted.

James C Morton said...

Rot,

You frame it differently but that's largely my point. People of faith are behind a vast array of social action (look at Covenant House for just one example). There are issues that divide (look at CG as you mentioned) but other issues can unite and Liberals have to make sure we understand that and give proper respect.

Anon,

Well, I don't see the CPC has been especially good either -- that's not an answer though. Perhaps that helped the NDP, although they too have scandals -- I think Green is clean though...

Anonymous said...

You can't change what you don't acknowledge, all the parties have scandals, however they don't go around saying "we are Canada's natural governing party...." seeing Iggy with Jean was a bad move, that image sent a message, that they haven't changed and are living in the past, just like you Mr. Morton.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:50 AM:

I'm certain that Ignatieff thought that he could improve the Liberal seat count when he pushed for an election--not win, but do good enough in order be in position to overtake the Conservatives in the next election after this one.

It was a crapshoot on Ignatieff's part and he rolled snake eyes.

Pmr said...

anon - 1:03 pm

"the Liberal Party can't be trusted"

You really think that Harper can?? This man was found in contempt of parliment - he has NO respect for parliment, NO respect for the Canadian People

I believe a lot of people voted CON becasue they were afraid of an NDP government, - I think that would have been better than giving a majority to a party whose leader is only after having a "Harper Government" (his words) and NOT a Canadian Government....

I am not sure if you are the same 'anon' (as there are many who sign that way) who has been extremely rude, arrogant, ignorant, disrespectful and a complete A hole during this entire election and a few have told you wht their thoughts are in a more direct way.........you can say all those things here because we live in a democracy - or we used to.. who knows what the next few years will bring under the "Harper Gov't"
and Mr. Morton does not block you (as I would) because he believes in our right to freedom of speech - which is a privilige and YOU should have more respect for that right and everyone else's

Anonymous said...

Pmr;

Last night the Liberal party was found in contempt of the people.

Do you get that??

lance said...

I'm inspired by some of the things you write about, but there is some inherent contradictions.

You write about the historical, Liberty in the Liberal brand, and then talk about banning guns. Where does that circle get squared?

The age of vast gov't policy shaping the country as a whole are over. The West and Quebec have been telling the feds that for 6 elections now. For all their differences, the Alberta mentality and Quebec have more than one similarity and those similarities can be distilled down to one concept:

Stay the hell out of our business.

That means grandiose schemes of resource based wealth redistribution, health-care, education, day-care...etc.

All of the above were proposed in the last Liberal platform. All of the above soundly rejected.

James C Morton said...

Anon,
The Liberals were not found in contempt of the people -- we lost the election.

Lance,
As for the Liberty point, well, that is something for me to think on - you raise a good point, thanks!

Stephen Downes said...

James, I was following your blog well before you became a candidate, followed your candidacy, and thoughout it all have found you to be an honest, forthright, upstanding and principled politician.

We can do the analysis in more detail, at more length, in the weeks and months to come. Please continue this blog, and your political involvement. Even if I never vote for you or your party, we are all made stronger for your involvement.