Is honesty really what voters want to hear?

A federal election is a little less than a year away for Canadians and two years away for our American neighbours. As voter turnout is somewhere around 55-60% for both countries, it’s safe to assume that 40-45% of the populations either don’t think their vote counts, or they don’t really care who gets elected. After all, regardless of who’s running or their platform; politicians all look and sound the same to most undecided voters. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago; a guy sitting on the toilet reading a newspaper, the capture was something like “thank goodness I only have to vote for one of them”. The complaints are typically the same when it comes to politicians; they’ll say whatever it takes to get into power, then backtrack or blame uncooperative opposition parties later for any shortfalls. It’s not a new tactic by any means, it’s actually one that’s been used for many years, and for good reason… it works.

So what if there was a politician who came along who was honest, forthcoming, and even a little bit inexperienced; how do you think she/he would do? Is being honest a good strategy in politics, or are we really looking for someone to tell us what we want to hear? After all, there are only two things you need to do as politician to get elected; either convince more people than your opponent can that you’re the better choice, or convince more people you’re opponent will be worse.

You only have to go back about twenty years to see how devastating it can be to fail at both. The (PCP) Progressive Conservatives Party’s Kim Campbell, Canada’s first female Prime Minister was popular, charismatic, intelligent, honest, and a relatively inexperienced politician. When the PCP’s decided to call an election in 1993, Campbell was not only ahead in the polls, she had an approval rating of over 51% with Canadians. All that changed in a heartbeat when her party ran a negative campaign ad appearing to mock their competitor’s speech impediment; Canadian’s were disgusted and she started to slip in the polls. Not a problem though, her attempt to discredit her opponent backfired, but Campbell could still lobby that she was the better choice. All she had to do was distance herself from any party negatives and reassure Canadians, who were in the middle of a recession with the highest unemployment rate (11.4%) in ten years, that she could right the ship. So what did she do when asked about her plan to improve social programs? She gave an honest answer; she didn’t have one. When asked about economic recovery, she gave another honest answer; her government was going to be fiscally responsible, control spending, reduce the deficit, and… oh yeah… there were no new jobs coming; she predicted a jobless recovery… huh? Her main opponent, Jean Chretien of the Liberal Party, talked about things like job creation, a national childcare program, and replacing the unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST). What was known as the Liberals “Red Book” of plans, or public contract, was so successful the US Republicans used a similar strategy in their 1994 campaign. The final result was the PCP, Canada’s oldest political party formed in 1867, being decimated. They went from 169 to 2 seats; not even enough to give them official party status. Ironically the Bloc Quebecois, a new party with a mandate to split Canada up as a country, became the Country’s official opposition party. Campbell immediately resigned from politics and the party never recovered, eventually dissolving in 2003 with the remaining members joining the New Conservative Party of Canada. By the way, The Liberals won the election but never replaced the GST, there is no national childcare program, and unemployment stayed over 9% until the following election.

The PCP’s defeat may have been the worst in Canada’s history and can be attributed to several factors, but Campbell’s inexperience and inability or desire to tell voters what they wanted to hear didn’t help. By being honest, she gave them no hope and paid for it politically. Campbell isn’t alone however; several politicians have tried to be truthful and paid for it with their political careers. In 2008 Stephane Dion took his Liberals from 103 to 77 seats by trying to be environmentally responsible with his “Green Shift” platform. As someone who once chaired a UN conference on climate change, he had a sincere concern with greenhouse gas and promised to introduce a carbon tax. It was honorable and honest, but not a big enough concern for average Canadians and the last thing they wanted was another tax. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives defeated him handily by promising to lower personal taxes, improved healthcare, support community programs, and be tougher on crime.

In the 2011 election Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was known for making comments about wanting his own country and an independent Quebec. He softened his tone slightly towards the end of the election, but he was very honest that his mandate would always be to represent the interests of Quebecer’s only. The problem was, even his own constituents seem to be tired of talking about sovereignty and were looking for change; Duceppe was offering much of the same. They in turn, looked for an alternative party to vote for and the Bloc lost all but four seats, including Duceppe’s. He immediately resigned from politics. To this day he remains resolute to the possibility of Quebec becoming its’ own independent country.

The Liberal leader in 2011, Michael Ignatieff, also learned a hard lesson about honesty, inexperience, and inability to tell voters what they want to hear. The Liberals should have been in a good position to capture the Bloc votes, but most Quebecer’s who were tired the sovereignty debate, were fed up with Federalists as well. Ignatieff appeared intelligent and capable enough to win them over, but he was a poor listener and an even worse politician. He refused to consider a coalition type Government, which may have included the Bloc, and indicated if he had his way there would be no third party. Many Canadians may actually agree with that concept, but to former Bloc supporters his comments implied he thought there were only two players in the race; which projected the exact federal arrogance they’ve come to loathe. Even though he sincerely tried to reach out to Canadians with multiple town-hall meetings, answering questions directly; most didn’t hear his message. In an interview less than two weeks before the election, he revealed that the political arena was humbling, and he had a whole lot to learn. Honest statements yes, but hardly the confidence you’d expect in a leader. His opponent’s strategically discredited him as conceited, inexperienced, self-serving, and an outsider; which seem to resonate loud and clear. Ignatieff was undeterred, saying Canadian’s had been very forgiving of some of his failings. Little did he know his inability to connect with voters would result with the biggest defeat in Liberal history, taking only 34 seats and forcing him out of politics. He later indicated that if he had to do it all over, he would need a filter between his brain and mouth, and he’d speak more strategically.

There has been much more to these defeats than just a simple slip of the tongue, but in every case the politician’s inability to connect with voters was critical. The Canadian election in all reality has already begun and it will likely be Justin Trudeau and the Liberals against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Harper is a seasoned politician who will be running on his track record while trying to discredit Trudeau. Trudeau is relatively inexperienced and has already tried to show he’s honest and transparent by openly admitting he smoked marijuana and in favor of legalizing it. He’s also been firm in insisting all his candidates be pro-choice on the abortion issue. There’s little doubt Trudeau will have to relentlessly defend both of those positions; it’ll be interesting to see if they help him become closer or more distant from voters. What about the upcoming US Presidential election? The Republicans appear to be the favorites, but who will end up representing them? I’m pretty sure they’ve learned some valuable lessons from the Sarah Palin disaster, but will they pick a fresh face like Paul Ryan’s, or perhaps we’ll see another Bush run for the position? Regardless of the election or politician, one thing is certain; there’s a big difference between being honest, and telling voters what they honestly want to hear. If history is any indication; failing to do the latter can be political suicide.