Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during a moderated question and answer session on the National Conservation Plan in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., on Friday, Oct. 17. Photo: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld In 1988, Steve Harper ran for the Reform Party in Calgary West against his former boss, Progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes.
The world wasn’t quite ready for Reform back then, and Harper came a distant second and went back to Ottawa to work for Deborah Grey, Reform’s first MP.
In 1993, with Reform on the rise and Mulroney’s government collapsing, Harper ran again — calling himself Stephen this time — and trounced Hawkes, with a little help from an American political consultant named Arthur Finkelstein.
Finkelstein wanted to get “Hawke’s head on a platter,” because the conservative think-tank, the National Citizens Coalition, who hired Finkelstein, blamed him for the “gag laws” that restricted the amount of money that groups like the NCC could spend during election campaigns.
Michael Harris writes about the Harper-Finkelstein link in his new book, Party of One, which comes out this week.
Harris, whose investigative work over the decades has led to three commissions of inquiry, has written a careful, calm, 544-page examination of the dark side of the Harper government, which belongs on book shelves next to the friendlier assessment provided by Paul Wells in The Longer I’m Prime Minister.
Harper is inspired by Republicans, a leader hostile to Canada’s system of parliamentary democracy, and in Party of One Harris meticulously traces what he sees as Harper’s attack on that system, getting measured comments from Preston Manning, Sheila Fraser, Linda Keen, Kevin Page, Robert Marleau and Peter Milliken; and spicier stuff from Michael Sona, Rahim Jaffer, Helena Guergis and Bridget DePape.
Finkelstein is a “brilliant and secretive political consultant who had perfected the political attack ad,” Harris writes, tracing his connection to Harper over the years.
The prime minister’s office says Finkelstein has never worked for Harper or the party, but Harris suggests he influenced the prime minister.
From 1993, when he unseated Hawkes, until last week, Harper has been fighting to make Canada safe for attack ads. As he has changed positions on other things, abandoning previously seemingly strongly held views, he has been consistent on this. When he was running the NCC, Harper unsuccessfully sued the government, contending that limits on third-party ads violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Last week, leaked cabinet documents showed that he wants to change copyright law to allow political parties to use news footage in attack ads.
And throughout his career, Harper has been carpet bombing his opponents with Finkelstein-style campaigns.
This week, he got some fresh help from his old friends at the NCC, who launched anti-Trudeau radio ads that dovetail nicely with Tory attacks.
Harris connects the dots between Harper and Finkelstein, who is nicknamed the “merchant of venom” because of his skill with attack ads.
“Finkelstein’s modus operandi was always the same: pinpoint polling aimed at exposing a weakness in an opponent; then use a trenchant, repetitive advertisement to exploit the candidate’s Achilles heel,” Harris writes.
Finkelstein keeps a low profile, preferring to avoid the media and deliver his advice to politicians in face-to-face meetings, but Harris found a recording of a talk he gave in Prague in May 2011 in which he outlined his tactics. (Interestingly, he told his audience that Greek riots could be used to discredit austerity opponents, which Harper’s election ads did that month in Canada.)
Finkelstein said that in politics, objective truth isn’t important. Perceptions are. And it’s possible to win elections by creating “a totally negative vote against an opponent while not showing your own candidate,” Harris writes.
Harper often seems to efface himself, projecting blandness, leaving the spotlight on his opponents.
In his book, Wells describes the prime minister going through speeches written for him, taking out colourful language and memorable phrases, which perplexes his speech writers. He avoids reporters, preferring to recite talking points in response to questions from friendlies, like Angelo Lombardo, of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who conducted a Q & A with him on Friday.
His opponents, who must seek public attention by blathering at reporters, inevitably expose themselves to attack.
What has been most successful about Harper’s attack-ad campaigns against Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff is that the Conservatives were able to identify the Achilles heel of both men. After that it was only a question of money, of which the Conservatives have more than their opponents.
Finkelstein is credited with “swiftboating” John Kerry in 2004, which allowed George W. Bush to beat him.
He told the Prague audience, correctly, that Kerry might have won the election if he’d responded more quickly to the attack ads.
This points to the problem with Finkelstein-inspired attack ads in Canada.
American research shows that attack ads can help tuned-out voters engage, particularly when campaigns are forced to respond to one another’s attacks. At their best, they can create real debate, highlighting the contrasts between candidates.
In Canada, for the past two elections, only the Conservatives have mounted effective attack ads — and a lot more of them — so observing our elections has been as dispiriting as watching a one-sided boxing match.
smaher@postmedia.com
@stphnmaher
No comments:
Post a Comment