“…if an issue is not the tips of their constituents’ tongues,
is easy for them to ignore it, to say, well, we’ll deal
with that tomorrow… “
Al Gore – An Inconvenient Truth 2006
Tired of hearing me quote from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? Sorry, but so long as it’s apropos, and it appears it will be for a while longer, I’ll continue to make reference to what others say – or don’t say – when doing so is among the best ways of getting a message across. After all, you don’t just want to hear what I think, do you?
The reason I am bringing this up, again, is that last week one of my three favourite Globe and Mail columnists, John Ibbitson (the other two being Roy MacGregor and Jeffery Simpson) wrote something that was, at the same time, both right and wrong, and more profound, than I think even John realizes.
In his January 30th column The perpetual pre-election machine must be stopped John writes: “The next election shouldn’t be about the environment. It shouldn’t be about Afghanistan. It shouldn’t be about leadership … The next election should be about elections … But political pressure corrodes public policy. The Conservatives, in their efforts to neutralize the environment as an election issue, could well be pushed into endorsing a climate-change plan that, in the long run, retards the development of the oil sands, reduces Ontario’s manufacturing competitiveness, and lowers the general standard of living, without saving a single glacier … They [politicians] have little choice. With an election possible this spring, more probable by this fall, and almost certain in 2008, no political party can afford to be on the wrong side of public opinion, on any issue, at any time. This is no way to run a federal government.”
It’s “this is no way to run a government” that caught my attention. First, I completely agree with John’s implied message, that not being able to make a decision in the morning until the previous night’s polling has been reviewed is not leadership, and is no way to govern a country. Leadership does not come 100% from listening to polls. In fact, leadership occasionally comes from knowing precisely when not to listen to polls. I know. I am in the polling business.
But leadership also isn’t about proving that you are a dictator, much less a dithering dictator when inevitably, being dictatorial catches-up with all dictators, even benevolent ones. Ask Saddam!
This isn’t to suggest Stephen Harper’s crime(s) are on par with those of Saddam Hussein. Not by any stretch. But Stephen Harper’s dictatorship has committed several serious tactical errors since coming to power, with every single one of them avoidable had he paid attention to science, including the science of public opinion.
But as Kenny Rogers says (note to self, hard to be taken seriously when you start quoting Kenny Rogers) “you’ve got to know when to hold’em, know when to fold’em, know when to walk away, know when to run…”. I have to imagine, therefore Mr. Harper is a terrible poker player given his track record for taking large gambles and losing. Don’t get me wrong, when I play poker and the cards people are holding are all uncertain, I love nothing more than bluffing in a game of chance and coming out the winner and pretending I knew something other than how to bluff.
But Mr. Harper has not been dealing with uncertainties. Public opinion was certain that taking on Mr. Emerson in the way he did was wrong. Public opinion will hold the same fate for Mr. Fortier and Mr. Khan. Public opinion does not have a problem, per se, with the decision to tax income trusts, but public opinion has a big problem with how it’s being done. The science of climatology and the science public opinion have both been very clear about the environment. In light of this, here is what NOT to say: “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations … implementing kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia …workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. There are no Canadian winners under the Kyoto accord.”
As I toyed on December 22 with Hey uncle Brian … is this better? it was only a matter of time before even Stephen Harper could no longer afford to ignore public opinion on the environment issue. Will Stephen Harper sidestep the figurative hanging that awaits him? Can a person recover from such critical errors in judgment? The answer is yes when the effort is not disingenuous and when it’s perceived by public opinion as being sincere, and the answer is no when it isn’t. So here is a further piece of public opinion from 1500 Canadians Mr. Harper can also choose to ignore at his own peril:
-
In terms of the job that now really needs to be done for the environment, even Stephen Harper last week admitted ‘the environment issue is not just a communications exercise, that Canadians expect more.’ How confident are you the Stephen Harper government will now treat the environment with complete seriousness?
- Very confident 7.9%
- Confident 34.0%
- Not confident 33.4%
- Not at all Confident 24.7%
Bringing me to two final “public opinion” points for this particular blog entry.
Proving that my friend John Ibbitson truly does “get it” sometimes, in the same column he also writes “If, as expected, the next government is a minority, the cycle will repeat itself, and pre-election preparations will begin again. At some point, this constant state of political crisis will start to exact a toll … It will show up in desertions from the public service, in lost investment caused by the uncertain political climate, in an international reputation for instability. (”So who’s the Canadian prime minister this year?”) At some point, voters are going to start asking politicians the question they ought to be asking now: “What are you going to do to ensure that the next Parliament is stable and co-operative, regardless of who wins?” They’re going to take proposals for electing the House through proportional representation more seriously. They’re going to demand coalition governments.“
Read that last sentence over-and-over. There is no need to elaborate. But if Mr. Harper thinks climate change is “junk science,” I simply can’t imagine what a dictator thinks of proportional representation where if you don’t know how to solicit, read, digest and shift public opinion, you’d better seek a new profession.
And my final point for today, nearly four months ago I commented here and here, about Mr. Harper’s ill advised strategy to oust Garth Turner. Public opinion is certain about this too, Mr. Turner did not leave his party, his party left him. The unintended consequences of that “tiny” tactical error has yet to play itself out fully, hasn’t it? More on that soon.