Political Strategy
I have been verbally beat up all over the media and Canada this week over allegations that I said last year in an interview with Steve Paikin that Canadians are stupid. I am stunned that this story could have taken off so much that I barely get to discuss Green Party policies with a journalist or television host without being grilled about the remarks I made on TVO The Agenda. (If you missed this monumental distraction, you can view it on Question Period with Jane Taber.) It is unfortunately compelling argument when you hear the tape of what I said or read the transcript. It goes something along the lines of: “The other parties think Canadians are stupid, and they don’t think… and I fundamentally agree with that assessment.” Taken out of context, it sounds a lot like I just disrespected Canadians. I want to make it really clear that I have never nor will I ever regard the Canadian public as anything less than intelligent and wise.
The first important thing to note is that the remark “I fundamentally agree…” was made in response to the comment of another panelist whose comment was not heard on the tape. Watching it it is clear that I have turned and point to the panelist who made the comment – off camera and off tape.. but, of course audible to the studio audience. I was speaking very quickly- as I have a habit of doing- and the microphone picked up some parts louder than others. I want to finally put this whole thing to bed and not deal with these foolish distractions anymore. I reviewed all this on TVO with Steve Paikin more recently and he confirmed that no one in the room thought I had said Canadians are stupid. In fact, my entire commentary was to make the opposite point. Check out the interview here: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/
The most convincing reason why no one should believe that I could ever call the electorate “stupid” is that I have a lifetime of work and writing in the public service and in activism that suggests I believe quite the opposite. From the beginning of my work in the environmental movement as a teenager in Cape Breton, I have worked with grassroots organizations and organized citizen movements to ensure that democracy is valued and effective. The cornerstone of my faith in democracy is a firmly held conviction in the intelligence and ethic of responsibility and fairness displayed time and again by Canadians. No matter what the circumstances of this single past interview, my work remains a testament to the fact that I respect and admire the Canadian electorate. I trust them to deliver the best result for Canada despite the flawed first-past-the-post electoral system and the antics of misbehaving choreographed politicians.
I have also been asked by journalists this week about the Green Party’s strategy going into the election campaign. It is not humility or secrecy that prompts me to say that we are not about strategy. We, as a party, do not often prioritize our own candidates’ election strategies. As leader of the party, my strongest commitment is to engaging Canadians in democracy and to informing the electorate of their choice as best I can. The issue of being in the debates raises the questions: which issues do I target? Who can I tear down to win the most votes? Which region of Canada would be most likely to support and how can I win them over? But I do not approach these questions thinking only of Green candidates’ political gains. I approach them first and foremost as a Canadian who wants to see a positive result for change in the next election. I may not have a massive war room, attack ads, a “take no prisoners” strategy team or an Orwellian databank on the electorate, but I have my faith in the discernment of Canadian and their consistent rejection of the politics of fear.
I plan to focus on the issues I think are most urgently needed in the debate to produce results at the end of the campaign. Stephen Harper may have twisted logic and strategic sense to lead him to an extensive campaign that leaves Canadians staggering. But the Green Party campaign will be run by ideas and solutions, by Canadians who are running as candidates because they want to get the message out: Canadians can choose for themselves how to vote. We want to make sure they have all the relevant information, and we trust them to make a wise choice for tomorrow.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
'Tis water under the bridge
Don't beat yourself up about it, Elizabeth.
You did speak more slowly on The Agenda recently and it was a definite improvement.
Unfortunately, during that program, in your explanation of the original tape, you claimed to have said then (rather than just thought) "and I disagree with that assessment," which only muddied things up again. I'd always understood the explanation to be what you state in your post here.
This kind of thing does happen in the fractious world of politics - which is why I'll never run as a candidate! But am delighted to work my fingers to the bone behind the scenes.
I admire what you're doing. Despite the odd mistake, your integrity, intelligence and commitment shine through and elevate you above the muck.
Ocean
WISE Book - Policies of Exclusion, Poverty & Health: Stories from the front
Podcast Channel: http://bcseawalker.podbean.com/
Personal Blog: Challenging the Commonplace - and other irreverent activities
http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/
I hope you aren't feeling
I hope you aren't feeling badly. I think all you have to say to Canadians is that you don't think they are stupid, you never felt that way and certainly don't want them to think you did. Have faith that Canadians don't want to dwell in the muck, or that those who do so can't be helped, and aren't going to accept any kind of explanation or apology anyways. If this is the worst the mudslingers can find, it's not so bad. At least you're not being called all the names Harper, Dion and Layton are being called. Yet =D
In fact I'm surprised the internet hasn't yielded some nasty, or childish nickname for you. Everyone else has several. I'd like to think it's out of respect.
... but, but, ... true but, but, ... at least...
As a society how do we stack up to along with say Swedes?.. or all those gullible enough in the U.S. of A. to have been drafted by their media channels to have elected dUBYA not once but twice? Maybe somewheres in about the middle? I feel that you're great Liz for being courageous enough to push the envelope in matters of policy discussion where, for example, you called the idiotic 'spin' of people who pretend that they have a case against China (& India) not being willing to agree to GHG emissions targets similar to what major polluters AS WE must commit to by claiming that these societies will be equally major polluters in the not too distant future... , by reminding us all that communist China's one child policy has done the world TODAY an immeasurable service at great sacrifice? Canada desperately needs your forthrightness today, so, you go girl is all I can say to that!
Writing to suggest that this might be the time to start grilling Stephen on all his acts of broken faith with the Canadian public, perhaps starting with the taxing of income trusts or wherever you our bright leader favor to begin undoing them, meaning that backward political party... Cheers & your the best of the lot by far & deserve UN citizen of the world status, YES!!
Monetary Policy
I think this is a forefront issue! Canada paid over $300 Billion (meaning us, the taxpayers, of course) in interest to the private banks that issue currency who in turn finance it to the government, between 1897 and 1997 on only SEVENTY BILLION DOLLAR PRINCIPAL!
As Henry Ford said, "if the people knew how banking worked, there'd be a revolution by morning"!
The bank of Canada needs to take back the core issuance of currency and we need to stop paying billions to private banks every year!
Derek B.
Oh yeah...
I also want to say that I'm pretty shocked people are actually buying this tiny soundbite without any investigation. I've seen the whole clip a couple of times and their allegations didn't even cross my mind (and at the time I was a Conservative Voter!). Clearly you were taken out of context, and if they listened to the rest of your dialogue they would have seen that your point was that other politicians are scared to use the word "carbon TAX" because THEY think Canadians are too unintelligent to see the difference.
we all know...
We all know that the media is biased towards the 3 "main" parties and always have them on and discuss them and talk about US in passing...
We know that the media skews things out of context, and lies to us and makes us think its for our own good.
The Internet has changed elections.
It has changed the way elections are run. The green party is running its campaign style in a way that the other parties do not get.
We are more interested in the facts then in spinning, and thats what bid media does and will continue to do... for example the most USELESS question on goldhawk live, was about should family be involved in politics? WTF is that a non issue or what.. its a personal family decision and thats that.. but 2 hour discussion on it on CPAC, how pathetic has tv come when it blatantly ignores discussion on the issues, and talks about something trivial.
The issue of the media is to spin and discredit the party and our leader. they will try at nothing to do it. Mostly because they do not want the truth to come out.
Remember, the fact that we got into the debates is enough to swing voters, and thats enough to make a difference.
We could seriously put a wrench into the mix. After all Harper is not asking for a majority, he's demanding it of Canadians.
David Orchard is an "Honourary Green" 100 times over-13 reasons
I ask all council members to consider an EMERGENCY MOTION to endorse Orchard. And if the decision is no, then at least decide NOT to spend thousands of dollars of Green Party donations destroying Orchard's campaign as promised by the Sask rep in
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/lo...
The case to endorse Orchard is if anything far more compelling than the case
to endorse Casey or even Dion.
In my view positive not negative publicity is resulting from endorsements
and cooperation. The Greens propose to be a party in a minority House so
what better way to prove to the public that it can perform in that role than
to walk into the House already co-operating with a few other MPs?
= ten arguments for the Green Party of Canada to endorse David Orchard =
1. David Orchard is the de facto leader of the Progressive
Conservatives in Canada. He worked tirelessly to preserve that party
against the merger into a Conservative-Republican-Alliance Party with
radically opposing values. He staked, and lost, his political career on
preserving it. No politician in Canada has a better claim to lead the
genuine PC movement.
Accordingly, endorsing him is no different than standing
aside for any other political party leader, to ensure that movement is
in the House.
2. David is only weakly associated with the Liberal Party
of Canada and is more of a grassroots candidate or independent.
David's endorsement by the Liberal Party of Canada came only after public
outcry in that riding and after the byelection failure by a from-the-top
appointment
(a former provincial NDP minister).
David was not the Liberal Party of Canada's first
choice in that riding and he is not necessarily the Green Party of
Canada's first choice, but he deserves, at least for this election, his
opportunity
to represent a group of constituents who obviously support him for
himself, not for his formal party affiliation.
3. David Orchard is living proof of Peter MacKay's
dishonourable behavior and willingness to abandon his values, history and
promises for power - the two men could not be more different. Even if the
Conservatives were to remain in power, Orchard in the House would
constantly embarass Mr. MacKay and whittle down his credibility. Since
MacKay
is literally the only Conservative east of Quebec who could take over the
Conservatives in their present form when Harper leaves, ensuring that
he does not is the surest way back to a reformed Progressive
Conservative movement or to restrict the Conservative-Republican-Alliance
Party
to its Western base. They would no longer have any claim to be a
"national" party and their influence, credibility and power would
accordingly
be checked.
4. Incidentally, focus on MacKay's shameful history will also help rivals
and direct electoral opponents such as Elizabeth May by forcing the
media to repeat the sad history - in the middle of an election campaign.
5. Effectively, as the Liberal Party of Canada has already
endorsed May in Central Nova, David has already implicitly endorsed
Elizabeth. Thus it is valid to ask, rather than "why endorse
him?", "why not?" Since this can be interpreted in some quarters as a loss
of
identity for Greens or an abandonment of policies where they differ from
the
Liberals, it must be part of any endorsement to request (not require or
withhold the endorsement without) a
list of potential Private Members' Bills that Orchard could introduce with
Green support. There are many such potential
ills, because David is already so aligned with Green policy see 6)
6. David's personal positions, quite aside from his party or organizational
affiliations, strongly resemble the Greens' on:
NAFTA, foreign wars fought under US "leadership", organic and
sustainable agriculture (vs. GMOs), independent foreign policy
not determined by US or NATO priorities, water pollution and
water rights, transparent democratic process, electoral reform
and so on. It would not be difficult to find legislation that
the Greens could write that David could introduce to the House.
7. David's courage as a politician is well known. He called for
further modifications to the Liberal Green Shift plan recently,
despite it having already been modified, to support farmers more.
He would not hesitate to break with Liberal Party interests in
the future to, for instance, advocate a stronger Green Party-
authored policy, should that be more effective for his constituents.
Accordingly, there need be no concern about endorsing a party shill
or simply giving the Liberals another seat, risking a majority. It
is difficult to imagine David Orchard standing up and voting for a
budget with which he personally disagreed, or holding up governments
that were unaccountable. He errs towards transparency and the truth
and loyalty to values, and against loyalty to leaders and to silence.
He might thus more reasonably be considered an independent than a
Liberal, making his endorsement a similar case to that of Bill Casey.
8. Endorsing another Progressive Conservative (this time running under the
Liberal banner) will encourage Progressive Conservatives (whether identified
with provincial PC parties or otherwise) to consider the Green Party an
option.
9. Endorsing Orchard simultaneously with another call on the NDP to join an
anti-Harper effort or coalition, would further increase the appeal of the
Greens to those who favour electoral cooperation and a representative House
of Commons in which no one (Greens, NDP, Progressive Conservatives) is
locked out.
10. This will also increase pressure on the NDP to, for instance, pull in
Central Nova and to deal in other ridings where the NDP has no chance and
the Liberal or Green does.
NDP members who favour cooperation and feel strongly that the NDP should be
at least as willing to talk to the Green Party as to the Taliban, and who
were embarassed by Jack Layton's attempt to lock Elizabeth May out of the TV
debates, can be expected to raise the internal pressure on Jack. Even if he
does not bend, this will affect both his future leadership chances (clearing
the way for an NDP leader who might cooperate in future elections) and
reduce the morale and effectiveness of NDP at the polls in marginal ridings
(where they do nothing but split the vote and elect more Harperoids).
== dealing with objections ==
The arguments against endorsing Orchard can be dealt with summarily:
* A this-election-only endorsement is not the same as calling someone "a
green" or "honourary Green" or somehow pretending they support you also.
If these labels are avoided, much of the controversy simply goes away
and there is no colour of endorsing this person for all time or in all
their positions.
* The GPC already endorsed the Liberal leader and an independent. If the
Progressive Conservatives remain a coherent and legitimate movement, as
Elizabeth May has claimed many times, their leader deserves endorsement.
Any argument in principle against such endorsements has already been set
aside at least with respect to leaders. So if Orchard is not endorsed on
the grounds that another party approves of him also, that is also an
argument against endorsing Dion. If the PCs are real, Orchard is a PC...
* Attempts to exclude the GPC from the debates on the grounds of "merging"
with the Liberal Party of Canada grossly backfired on Layton and Harper.
If they bring up this fatuous argument again, they'll be crushed again -
the public and media have heard and rejected it by a margin of at least
2 to 1. It would be a political plus for the Greens if Layton or Harper
were to make this argument again, because it provides an excuse to both
remind the public of their forced-by-the-public reversal on the debates
and also enumerate the points on which Green and Liberal platforms are
different. Now that the GPC platform is published, publicity for it is
extremely desirable, especially as it will influence other parties' own
platforms. So further controversy and public/media scrutiny on Green/
Liberal dealings would be desirable as it highlights a humiliation for
two rivals (Layton, Harper) and re-aligns policy discussions along the
lines of how Green policy and Liberal policy differ. This marginalizes
the left and right and reframes the debate entirely on green-grey axis!
Nothing could be more desirable from Green Party of Canada point of view.
Free publicity for the platform, and a reminder every time an NDP or a
Conservative spokesperson accuses Greens and Liberals of colluding that:
- there are at least two parties in Canada capable of forming and running
a capable minority government without undue acrimony or posturing
- the real debate is not about the green direction but on how fast to go
- a Liberal vote gets Canada some of the way towards the Greens' vision
- Layton and Harper and bullies and incapable of reading the public mood
- Layton and Harper are unable to formally and transparently cooperate
even though (surprisingly?) a gain for one is often a gain for the
other (Harper's outrageous policies build anger and left energy while
Layton's refusals to compromise lead to elections on Harper's schedule)
11. The vote was not even close in the byelection. If Orchard wins it will
clearly be a combination of his personal organizing power, grassroots
effort, and national publicity both in the byelection and as a result of
this endorsement by the Greens. This will give the GPC EDA inordinate and
extreme weight in any conversations with their MP! I think they should put
together a wish list of things that will achieve broad support in the riding
and make sure David knows they'll run against him if he doesn't achieve most
of the reasonable ones. It'll be the most powerful Green EDA in the
country.
12. "Left" constituents will thank the Greens for delivering Orchard to them
and probably resent the NDP for trying to elect a Conservative instead. It
may be that young people and people disgusted by politics join the Greens
not the NDP due to this flexibility and open cooperative attitude. This
will probably put the Greens in second place position (as in Guelph and
London North Centre) in polls in between the elections...
13. A burst of positive publicity for Orchard and May, negative for MacKay
and Harper, ought to prove that these endorsements work to get the public
and media asking the right questions about policy compatibility and
cooperation and policy difference management in minority governments or
coalitions. The more they do this, the more the emphasis will be on finding
a common Canadian agenda instead of on who has "strong leadership" (the
idiotic phrase the NDP/Conservative coalition shares in their ads).
I think third time's the charm. After three endorsements across party lines
it becomes obvious the Greens are here to do things differently and change
the game.
Constantine Kritsonis
Constantine Kritsonis
More reasons Orchard an honourary green
Orchard's reputation in the green community is such that our pary brass tried to woo him into the party. Many green party faithfull helped Orchard in his previous campaigns. Because of Orchard, now Canadians everywhere have a basic grasp of “our” fundamental policy tax shift theme and a Liberal party promoting it – not to mention a Liberal leader who refused on principle in joining the jackals that would bar Elizabeth from the debates. Whatever the fallout from these events, it can only lead to a more enlightened Canada. These are paradigm shifts in Canadian politics and Orchard has been the driving force. He is a green powerhouse. I beg the party to cease it’s plan of spending thousands of dollars in Orchard’s riding to defeat him – and by default elect a Harperite. Remember in Orchards riding the Liberals lost to the Tories by 73 votes in the last general election. If Orchard loses by a handful of votes because we spent our $5000 riding budget siphoning off progressive votes from Orchard, we are shooting our cause in the foot. As well we risk the monster scenario – a Harper majority by one seat – which we spent thousands in GPC donations to give him. Do you want you membership fees and campaign donations going toward “that”?
Constantine Kritsonis
Constantine Kritsonis
"...Canadians are stupid..."
Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario
Elizabeth, all this means is that you are now an important Canadian politician, and you are being treated like any other. It's a nasty game; it always has been. Misrepresentation, spinning and outright lying are to be expected. And it's all good, controversial news about the horse-race.
Remember, Mr. Harper and his henchmen have a revolution to win, and they are ruthless. The NDP is desperate to survive. They are deeply offended, outraged, that any other party should dare to claim the moral high ground.
They think they have a divine right to that territory.
What will help us is that many of the voters do not like these methods.