CAMPAIGN DECODER Getting message out: Liberals show, opposition tells
Sorting out this early part of this election campaign all depends on which sense voters use to digest the political messages.
To understand what Prime Minister Paul Martin is saying, voters have to use their eyes. To understand what Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton are saying, voters need their ears.
Consider the main messages deposited during the first week: Martin’s big moment was told through the picture of him clad in a union jacket, embracing Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove last Friday in a strategic alliance. Subtitle: Liberals and traditional New Democratic Party supporters can work together. But only Hargrove uttered the words. The big moments for the Conservatives and the NDP came through the spoken word: Harper’s chain of policy announcements and Layton’s rather sophisticated, complex appeal for strategic votes in key ridings on Jan. 23. Their alleged missteps were also verbal: Harper making no bones about his samesex stand and Layton seeming to waffle on private health care.
Martin’s campaign is a visual one mainly because of caution. He’s the incumbent. He wants to leave an impression but not make any big waves. The Liberals, after 12 years of governing and a few bad tumbles over alleged broken promises, don’t want to get caught out by their words. They’re holding reasonably steady in the polls. The opposition, on the other hand, needs to get attention by getting voters talking. Harper and Layton need to start a conversation; they need to be provocative. Not the Liberals: even when Martin does want to provoke, he prefers that people draw their own conclusions. He’ll present the dots and it’s left to the voters or media to connect them.
This didn’t just start with the election campaign. A few months ago, for instance, when Martin wanted to ratchet up the tough talk on trade with the United States, he went to New York to deliver a speech to the blue-ribbon Economic Club. He said two things: One, the U.S. needs to respect the principles of North American Free Trade Agreement; and two, oil and energy are part of NAFTA. Was that a threat to use Canadian oil as a weapon in the trade war? Martin never said — he let the media say it for him. He wanted to be seen making a strong stand but not necessarily articulating it. On this point, Martin may have learned at the feet of the master, his predecessor Jean Chrétien, who also was expert at seeming to make promises but not actually vocalizing them.
It falls to the voters to decipher the messages accordingly.