It's The Story Stupid

In his Wednesday column for the Montreal Gazette, L. Ian MacDonald outlines the undisciplined and often contradictory messaging that has become the Liberal campaign.

Not surprisingly, he lays much of blame at the feet of Stephane Dion. On the Green Shift, for example, MacDonald points out that "when he (Dion) was asked by CTV's Bob Fife the other day why he wasn't talking about the central plank in his platform, Dion replied that he never said it was, the media did. [...] But then on Monday, when the Liberals released their platform, the online version of it referred to the Green Shift as "the cornerstone" of their campaign."

There's no doubt that inexplicable inconsistencies such as this are troublesome for those of us who support the Liberal Party. But I would take MacDonald's contention that the Liberal message is muddied and go one step further: There is no message. Or more to the point, there is no story.

The theme of the Conservative's story, on the other hand, is obvious. As the title of a September 7 CPC press release clearly states: "Oct. 14 election a choice between certainty and risk." Every aspect of the Conservative campaign -- policy, Harper's speeches, their ads -- are designed to create a network of associations in the minds of voters wherein Harper is the safe choice and Dion is the risky one.

Let's take those much derided sweater ads as an example. The content, the images and the tone of these ads connote safety, predictability and therefore certainty. While the CPC's attack ads state quite explicitly that the Dion Liberals are a gamble, a risk.

(When Liberals mock the sweater ads, I have to laugh. Many of them, I presume, are probably too young to remember the 1974 election when Kieth Davey had Margaret Trudeau at her husband's side throughout the campaign in order to make Pierre seem all warm and fuzzy. Why? Because, like Harper, Pierre Trudeau was perceived by many voters as cold, mean spirited and arrogant. The makeover worked for Trudeau in 1974 and it's working for Harper now.)

The Liberals have no comparable one-two ad punch because they have no theme, nothing to build a message around and as result no story to tell Canadian voters.

Now why is this the case? There are a couple reasons.

First, Liberal acquiescence which began last Fall and only culminated this Spring. A year ago, Liberals, particularly in the form of Bryon Wilfert, made the media rounds and told Canadians that the official Opposition would not bring down the Harper Government on the Throne Speech because their was no defining issue on which to have a campaign (here and here). This effectively took the environment off the table as the central issue in any future election. If the environment was not a defining issue in September of 2007, why would it be one in September of 2008? How can you go to Canadians and say "we have to enact this complex tax shift to save the planet," when a year earlier you were saying their was no big issue on which to run a campaign? Answer: You can't.

Although few people noticed at the time, the wind went out of the sails of the environment file a year ago. From that point forward it was going to be extremely difficult to build a campaign message in which Dion could credibly run as a champion of the environment. The complexity of the Green Shift, and it's vulnerability to attack, only added to that difficulty.

The second reason why Liberals are unable to communicate a coherent story to voters is that the party seems to be bereft of high quality strategists and advisers.

Lately, it's become fashionable for Liberals to point a disapproving finger at the news media and there is some validity to their protestations. But here's a news flash folks: It's the job of strategists to understand how the media works and use it to their advantage. The Conservatives do it, why can't we?

The truth is, this will be the third consecutive dreadful campaign run by the Liberals. Even the campaigns of the front runners for the Liberal leadership were fatally flawed thanks to their respective advisers. (I am referring here, of coarse, to Michael "let's re-open the Constitution" Ignatieff and Bob "I have no ideas" Rae.)

There are three questions that dominate the thinking of undecided and switch voters (as opposed to party loyalists) when deciding who they should support. 1) Who's the stronger candidate? 2) Who's more trustworthy? And 3) Who cares more about people like me? A winning campaign will create a story that prods voters to answer these questions in favour of their candidate.

Harper and Layton are leading campaigns based on these questions, is Dion? Not if what I've seen thus far is any indication.

Just take a look at the taglines from the ads of the three major parties and you'll see what I'm talking about.

CPC: We're better off with Harper -- Two messages in one: First, Harper's the better leader. And second, Canadians are literally financially "better off with Harper" as prime minister.

NDP: A new kind of strong -- Layton is a strong leader who cares about average Canadians.

Lib: Let's get started -- ... implementing a complicated taxation plan Canadians don't fully understand.

Does the Liberal slogan attempt in any way to answer one of the three questions above? No, it doesn't. It conveys almost nothing to the average voter.

Conspicuous by his absence from this brief analysis (slash rant) is Stephane Dion. This is because I believe the reasons for the failure of this campaign go much deeper than the leader himself.

Based on the last two general elections alone, should we really be surprised by the absence of a coherent story this time around? After all, in politics, as in life, barring a major wake-up call and a concerted effort to change, the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.

If I may be permitted to turn a phrase from a truly excellent story: The fault, fellow Liberals, is not in our media but in ourselves, that we are losing.