In the case of the attack ads against Stephane Dion, the Conservative party could get away with arguing that’s what they truly believed; that Stephane Dion was “not a leader.”
However the tactical and rather misguided decision to launch a series of attack ads against Michael Ignatieff will succeed not in proving what Stephen Harper truly believes, but rather how he operates.
It’s one thing to be thought a bully, it’s another thing to remove all doubt.
Don’t get me wrong, attack ads work and there are only a few instances in Canadian history where attack ads have backfired. The most famous of which was in 1993 when then Conservative strategists under Kim Campbell thought showcasing Jean Chretien’s facial disfigurement would be an effective way of tapping into the electorates’ subconscious preference for what they might want a Prime Minister not to look like.
But here is the thing about the strategy business. The best strategies are ones that fly under the radar and that people don’t recognize as an obvious and deliberate strategy. In general, people can be duped until they know they are being duped; then things start to get complicated.
No doubt a certain percentage will be affected by the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff in the way Conservative strategists hope. However not as large a percentage will fall prey to the strategy as they did in the case of Stephane Dion. Not because the content of the attack ads against Mr. Ignatieff may be false, but rather because more people will recognize the recent set of attack ads for what they really are; an all too familiar method of operation as opposed to what Conservatives truly believe.
Canadians have come to understand that it didn’t matter who the Liberals selected to replace Mr. Dion. One way or another the prospective candidate was going to be targeted by a series of attack ads. Some recipients of the holy unleashing simply make better targets than others. It was always only a matter of time.
Clearly Conservative strategists believe the Ignatieff honeymoon is over, or they believe they can’t afford to let it last any longer. But the more important question may turn out to be; for what percent of the population will the attack ad strategy against Mr. Ignatieff backfire against Mr. Harper?
Recent polls have favoured Mr. Ignatieff and show him at a so-called “tipping point” and possibly continuing to trend upward. By the same token, the very same polls also show Mr. Harper is perceived as competently-enough managing the current economic crisis at the same time as there is still an underlying distrust of the man personally. Now isn’t the time to chance the risks associated with launching yet another between-elections campaign which many may perceive as a very personal series of unprovoked attack ads.
Mr. Harper would have been well advised to leave well enough alone. If if the urge to attack was simply uncontrollable, it needn’t be so personal. At least not so soon after the Dion slaughter. More to the point isn’t Mr. Harper launching an “it’s all about me” campaign a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black? In fact, might that not be the Liberal attack-ad response?
In recent weeks Mr. Ignatieff has made enough noise about possible fiscal policy adjustments - e.g. Employment Insurance Benefits – which the Conservative machinery could more easily and more logically turn into a debate over how far left or tight of centre either party is with regard to fiscal conservatism and social progressiveness. Painting the Liberals, and by association Mr. Ignatieff, as the spendiest Party in Canadian history – whether that’s true or not – a position Canada can at this time least afford, would have been an easier and more believable sell.
Mr. Harper has already gone the route of buying votes. Mr. Ignatieff wants to. Seems to me any attack ads, if warranted, might have been better focused along traditional party policy differences, not in made-up personal attacks.