I’ve had this posting half-written for a week and ahalf now, but with tonight’s election looming I figure it’s time to blog or get off the pot, so to speak.
Being a communications professional – if I can get away with calling myself that – I appreciate more than most the importance of spokespeople staying on message, regardless of the topic at hand or questions posed. This is particularly so when unexpected events occur, and even more so when that spokesperson holds or is running for public office. I would go as far as to say that staying on message, projecting optimism and believing that failure is not an option can be even more important to the success of a political campaign than the issues or platforms themselves.
But there’s a point where you’ve got to throw in the towel if you’re going to keep the trust of the voters.
Witness George W. Bush. In spite of doubts, accusations and insults cast against him for everything from civil rights to the war in Iraq, Bush faired pretty well popularity-wise well into his second term. His arguably sizeable win over Kerry in 2004 is probably the most obvious indicator. Where I think Bush went wrong (in terms of communication, not policy), and ultimately why Republicans suffered defeat in the mid-terms, was when he went from “optimistic on-message” to…well, “dumb on-message.”
Forget whether or not the war was justified or the right move initially; fast forward to today and the reality is clearly way off what the Bush administration and American voters were envisioning for late 2006. Casualties continue to mount. Only two out of 18 provinces are under Iraqi control. And the commitment of coalition forces is wavering, at best. What’s almost more telling is the growing roster of generals, senators and other high ranking military officials and Republicans voicing their frustration with how the mission has unfolded.
My point is that voters – by and large, and even the skeptical ones – tend to give politicians the benefit of the doubt in a good number of issues, including when things aren’t going quite as planned. But our patience isn’t infinite. Put another way, we’ll put up with all the spin and massaging of the truth politicians dish out…to a point. But when live images on CNN and YouTube so glaringly cut through the fine tuned messaging and once-convincing optimism being conveyed by politicians; that’s when our patience runs out. That’s when healthy skepticism turns to disdain. And that, not “Foleygate” or the growing roster of recent scandals, is where I believe Bush lost that crucial ounce of trust that was keeping the Republicans in power.
On a smaller scale but closer to home, Toronto mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield crossed that line a couple weeks ago for me. It was after a planned speech to the Economic Club was cancelled because no-one (according to 680 News) signed up to attend. When asked if (pretty obviously) she saw the low/no turnout as a setback, Pitfield said no, effectively talking about the cancellation as if it were nothing more than missing an elevator and having to wait for the next one. “Not at all,” she replied, explaining that momentum among those who "truly follow the issues" is in fact growing.
To me, this single response was the nail in Jane Pitfield’s coffin (at least, the coffin of my vote). Why?
First off, what does her response say about the presidents, CEOs, lawyers, investment bankers, entrepreneurs (and me!) who attend Economic Club events? Aren’t we part of the group that “truly follow the issues” among whom momentum is growing? In her eyes, obviously not.
Plus, what does this say about how she would handle a catastrophe as Mayor? If a giant plume of SARS virus was blowing over Lake Ontario towards us, would she warn us, tell us what’s being done to protect us and provide guidance on how to prepare? Or would she optimistically wish us a happy day?
And lastly, because of course it’s a setback! A Communist Part candidate in Flin Flon would be disappointed in a zero-turnout event. Setbacks happen to everyone, but the smart thing to do is almost always to acknowledge them, find out why they happened, and institute measures so they don’t happen again.
I think Canadians enjoy and exhibit a healthy balance of skepticism and trust towards our elected officials. It’s this balance that allows us to break open an AdScam or Ahrar case, and to move on while we’re dealing with them. Acknowledging such setbacks and dealing with them certainly causes short-term turbulence for the offending party, but it keeps the skepticism and trust in balance. When reality so obviously contradicts politicians’ optimistic messages though, that’s when the balance is lost. It’s a fine but definite line that, when crossed, can be a fatal torpedo that sinks the boat of a politician or party.
How much Pitfield's comment will play into her defeat in today's election, I suppose we'll never know. All I can say for sure is that it cost her at least one vote.
