www.adamyoshida.com |
|
|
|
Friday, December 09, 2005
How We Can Win This Thing
We are, as I said the other night, losing this election – but that does not mean that the election is lost. At least, not yet. The fact that we’re losing is, let’s be frank, undeniable. In every poll of which I’m aware we’ve lost ground since the start of the campaign. In our best poll – Ipsos Reid – we’ve gone from a tie to being down by four points. In our worst poll – SES – we’re now down by fifteen points. The real figure, if I had to guess, it somewhere in between. Whatever it is, it’s not good. But, still, there’s hope. Wars are not won on the defensive. At best, we can dig-in and hold our blood-stained ground. Given that we hold insufficient territory as it is, a defensive strategy cannot possibly be a winning one. As I see it, the problem is that we’re running the campaign that the more moderate members of the press corps would like us to run. We’re running a campaign on Timbit-sized promises which, fundamentally, buy into the Liberal view of the world – that the state should sponsor child care, that our crime problems can be solved by tinkering, and that total public health care is a good idea. We’re running the campaign that moderates would like us to run in that we’ve mostly played nice and have refrained from negative attacks. We’re also running the campaign that most of these so-called “moderates” would like us to run in that, if we keep on acting this way, we’re going to lose. It reminds me a lot of how I’d like things in the United States to work in reverse. I – and many other Republicans – regularly advise Democrats to become more patriotic and more Republican-like, not because we want them to win, but simply because we’d like our ideas too dominate the political discourse regardless of which party is in power and, further, we believe that if the Democrats move to the right it gives us a chance to do the same in that it would shift the political centre of gravity. If we’re going to win, leaving aside the policy prescriptions I’ve set out elsewhere, we need to do one important thing: attack, attack, attack. Forget the “people tune out negative attacks” nonsense. All evidence – from our last election to every American election in memory is that negative attacks worse. The best way to win – especially in a media-saturated environment – is to paint your opponent being the moral equivalent of a child molester. The secret to victory is, as Fredrick the Great pointed out – audacity, always audacity. Maintain the assault, never apologize, and never retreat. Our goal is not to hold our position. Nor is it to outflank the enemy. This is a war of annihilation. We don’t need any finesse or subtlety, we need to grab the enemy by the throat and not let them go. We need to adopt a political strategy analogous to the military strategy of Ulysses S. Grant in 1864-1865 when he defeated Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. We need to latch onto the enemy and use our superior resources (cash and volunteer support) to annihilated the enemy’s forces in an unending battle of attrition. The way to win this battle is not to stay in our trenches, hoping that we will be shielded from Liberal fire. We must be attacking constantly and without mercy. We need to overrun the Liberals’ position and then bayonet the survivors. That’s how we’ll win. Now what, you might ask, does that translate to politically? Simply another rehashing of sponsorship? Hardly. We need to launch an all-out assault on the whole of the Liberal record. Every scandal, every policy failure. There’s a list of 199 of them out there. We need that tacked up to every wall in the land. We need to use everything in the arsenal against them. Every wild proposal – every wedge issue. We need attacks on sponsorship. We need attacks on HRDC. We need attacks on their proposals for legalized drugs and prostitution. We need to find victims of crime and put them on television to explain how the Liberals let the people who harmed them out of jail to rob, rape, or murder again. We need Canadian soldiers to explain how the Liberals sent them to war with gear suitable to fight and win the first Korean conflict. It’s time to put down our Nerf Gun and get out our Louisville Slugger. We need to seize hold of everything we can use against the Liberals and then we need to beat them until they lie bloody and unmoving on the ground. And then we need to beat them some more. We need to kick the hell out of these liars, fools, and criminals who have stolen and nearly destroyed our country.
Comments:
It’s time to put down our Nerf Gun and get out our Louisville Slugger. We need to seize hold of everything we can use against the Liberals and then we need to beat them until they lie bloody and unmoving on the ground. And then we need to beat them some more.
Purely out of curiosity, can you think of a single election in a democratic country where such tactics have actually worked? In my experience, aggressively negative campaigning almost invariably rebounds on the people behind it, largely because giving people something to vote against is by definition a far less persuasive argument than giving them something to vote for. One of the main reasons that the British Conservative Party has been doing so badly over the last decade or so is because they've essentially been adopting these tactics - they oppose anything the government does just because it's put forward by them, not because they necessarily disagree (this reached a shameful nadir when they refused to support the government's university tuition fees proposal, even though this was exactly the kind of thing they'd been calling for for years). Indeed, these tactics became so familiar (and widely mocked) that for a very long time a Google search on the word "opportunist" produced the homepage of Tory leader Michael Howard as the first result - even today, half a year after the election and when he's no longer leading the party, he's still at number five. And it's only now that Howard's replacement has announced that he's going to support the government when their proposals chime with his own position that his party has started to show any kind of improvement in the polls. And, similarly, it was only when Tony Blair conceded that Margaret Thatcher's reign wasn't the epitome of untrammelled evil that his party started to look electable in the mid-1990s.
Adam is incapable of understanding that the idea of governing is to do the corrent thing for the people of the country one is governing.
For Adam, governing is all about having the power to do whatever fuckwitted thing you want and then try and wrap yourself in the flag to deflect justifiable criticism. It's not surprising that since that is his philosophy on governing that the philosophy carries over to campaigning.
Michael, when such tactics worked?
How about for George W. Bush in 2004 or for George H.W. Bush in 1988? How about against Max Cleland in Georgia and in other Senate races in 2002?
It's generally recognised that the single most productive thing that Bush senior did during the 1988 campaign was his convention speech, which propelled him ahead in the polls, where he remained until election day. And it's worth reading the speech, as it's an overwhelmingly positive address, full of optimistic visions about the future of America - and a surprising absence of opponent-bashing.
And in 2004, Bush would almost certainly have won even without negative campaigning - Karl Rove had been far too successful in cultivating the core religious right vote. So again, that doesn't prove anything. As for 2002, they weren't elections for a change of government, and in any case the post-9/11 atmosphere made them much harder to call than the polls suggested. But I'll happily rephrase my original question: can you think of a single election in a democratic country where a party has gone from being well behind in the polls to win overall, purely through negative campaigning? And where do you think the British Conservative Party went wrong earlier this year, since they adopted a great many of the tactics you proposed?
I don't advocate "purely negative" campaigning, nor do I see anywhere where I've said such.
I advocate a combination of strong policy planks - bold proposals - with a harsh attack upon the record of the opposing candidate/party and, if necessary, their character. See: Bush, 2004 - Clinton, 1992 - Bush, 1988 - Reagan, 1980 - Carter, 1976 - Nixon, 1972 - Johnson, 1964 for examples. For "purely negative" campainging, look at the Liberals in 2000 and 2004, where they basically ran upon a platfrom of promises no one believed combined with the argument that Conservatives are evil. To begin, I've have voted Labour in the UK this year (so long as my candidate were him or herself a Blairite). The war comes first, in my books. Beyond that, I'd argue that the Conservatives lost because they offered the worst of both worlds - a pointless and ill-targeted negative campaign and no real promise to change the direction that New Labour has been taking. No promise to make substantive reductions in public spending (a promise for a reduction, to be sure, as I recall - which the Labourites blew up - but no real or fundamental change). A promise to be tougher on Asylum-Seekers, but no reason to believe it would actually come to pass. And, in my books, John Kerryism on the war too. Like in Canada, if the Tories had any sense, they'd have run particularly hard on crime - followed by tax reduction - and with a promise to resist further British integration into the Eurozone.
Christ Adam, is there anything you can't turn into a metaphorical gangland street brawl? Anything to avoid a real life rumble and validate your tough guy overcompensating ego I guess eh?
You know what, honestly, I wish Adam Yoshida was in charge of Harper's campaign. Soooo much. If you think he couldn't be more of a smarmy, incompetant, petulant bastard than he is now (have you seen his election commercial? Jesus tapdancing christ!) just imagine how reviled he would be if he began making all the changes that Adam proposes? Harper would be forced out of his position over the prison reforms alone, any approval he has would plummet. A word of advice Adam, the Canadian electorate is a little different than the American one, scorched earth scare tactics aren't gonna work buddy. It really is satisfying though, seeing Adam mince and whine and impotently wail about their losing the election again. I look foward to near future election posts from dipshit here.
Christ Adam, is there anything you can't turn into a metaphorical gangland street brawl? Anything to avoid a real life rumble and validate your tough guy overcompensating ego I guess eh?
You know what, honestly, I wish Adam Yoshi
Like in Canada, if the Tories had any sense, they'd have run particularly hard on crime - followed by tax reduction - and with a promise to resist further British integration into the Eurozone.
That's pretty much exactly what the British Tories did in 2001 - when they lost so badly that their leader resigned the very next day. And that was before September 11 shifted the political landscape, when issues like crime, tax and Europe had rather higher profiles. Now, Europe is largely an irrelevance - it was barely mentioned in the 2005 campaign, and the only party that did bring it up repeatedly, the UK Independence Party, did so badly that their long-term future is in question. Tax reduction is clearly not a realistic economic policy at a time of heightened security, as most senior Tories acknowledged (many of them in public). And running "particularly hard on crime" would achieve nothing at a time when Britain already has the highest prison population serving the longest sentences in its history - and when most types of crime are actually falling. I'd argue that the Tories didn't stress these issues in 2005 because they did have some sense, not because they didn't. And although they still lost badly, they did markedly better than in 1997 or 2001.
The performance of the UKIP isn't really relevant - after all, the party was split into the rump UKIP and Vertias.
Veritas was an irrelevant joke - a party designed purely as an ego-trip for former chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk, who flounced out of UKIP when they wouldn't make him leader. The only Veritas candidate who scored any votes worth tallying was Kilroy himself, and he did abysmally (the look on his face when he heard the result was priceless).
Also, Veritas only ran 65 candidates - only around a tenth of the number that UKIP put up. Even if you can construct a case that Veritas damaged UKIP in those 65 constituencies, that doesn't explain why the party did so badly in the remaining 500 plus. True, the publicity surrounding the Kilroy fallout didn't help UKIP - a hilarious television documentary showed how disorganised and incoherent they were - but Veritas had rather less impact on UKIP than the breakaway far-left Respect party had on Labour. Respect, after all, actually got an MP elected, and came pretty damn close in another constituency.
What's with this "WE" business all of a sudden? Are the Republicans assembling a Canadian branch now? I thought you'd disowned Canada for all intents and purposes save having a dank basement to lurk around in in Cheetos-stained Spiderman PJs.
Post a Comment
|