Demonizing an opponent won’t win the election
“I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”
Abraham Lincoln, the great American president famous for keeping his enemies close, said these words so long ago that in the age of social media evisceration, such a sentiment doesn’t just seem quaint, it seems unbelievable.
The prevailing ethos today — especially in politics and absolutely on volatile platforms like Twitter — is “I don’t like that man, I must savage him as thoroughly as possible and deny everything he/she says has any merit or humanity at all.” I must create a meme! Destroy him with a stupid nickname! Call her ugly! Mock her intellect! … well you get the picture. No need for the toxic particulars.
We seem to have reached a point
where many of us have no interest in even hearing an argument for — or from — anyone who doesn’t fully agree with us.
That’s a dangerous and disheartening proposition as we head into a federal election and the federal leader debates.
Credit the rise of populism, the death of truth or the decline of civility. Or the very real evidence that a virulent strain of racism and other forms of bigotry is on the rise.
It may be behavioural extremes that have brought us here — but behavioural extremes won’t fix us.
Everyone gets to walk away from strangers they disagree with in social settings. I did, not too long ago at a cocktail party in an academic setting when a woman I’d never met before began to complain how deeply unfair it was to her personally that she had to learn new gender neutral pronouns to talk to young people who didn’t feel comfortable being identified as a she or a he.
I should have stayed and reminded her how much resistance the word “Ms.” encountered when it entered our social lexicon. It wasn’t gender neutral, but it spared women from revealing personal details about themselves or their relationship status. Or, as having been the case for women in my generation, being asked the not so neutral question: “Why aren’t you married?”
Now, Ms. is on every official government and corporate document and many women have happily never used anything else. In the early days of Ms. usage, men especially mocked you even while using it — how are you doing Mizzz Feminist? But now, no one cares. Lesson: Address people the way they wish to be addressed. It enhances everyone’s humanity.
When you want to be a leader in a country as wonderful and as diverse as Canada, you don’t have the luxury of walking away from those you disagree with, especially if you want to change their hearts and minds.
The goal is not to be nice, or so anodyne as to never give offence or to be afraid to be sharply critical of a policy or a point of view.
Nor is it to give racism or other forms of bigotry a platform. Informed criticism is the best.
Justin Trudeau is not going to get re-elected merely by demonizing Andrew Scheer and his Conservatives, and Scheer has to be careful how much hate he whips up against Trudeau and the Liberals.
Online will remain the wild west of name calling. Calling Justin Trudeau “Justine” for example — as I’ve seen many times online from random men and women Trudeau haters. What is that about except a sneering jab at what, his masculinity?
Scheer is soft-spoken and he has dimples. Yet, no one calls him Andrea. (although you can bet if Scheer isn’t triumphant at the polls the Conservatives will find someone much harder and tougher and more articulate to lead them. )
Demonizing simply doesn’t work. If Hillary Clinton couldn’t vanquish Donald Trump by rightly pointing out how morally politically and intellectually deficient he was, how seriously dangerous his presidency would be and how it would shatter all norms of decency, then no one is going to win by putting horns on their opponents.
As for the leadership debates, they usually reveal a smidgen of character, intellect, breadth of knowledge and depth of humanity no matter how much the candidates stick to their talking points or their slogans. (“In it to spin it” is pretty well every political party’s slogan.)
Here are some avenues to be explored with the leaders. 1. What major issue have you genuinely changed your mind about and what or who helped you think differently?
2. Name three books/reports you’ve read that informed your approach to climate change.
3. Where do you find commonality with your opponent? Where do you think you have more to offer?
Heading into a battle for reelection, Trudeau’s famous “sunny ways” has now become that “hopey changy thing” that failed Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin tried to mockingly hang on Barack Obama during a tough time in his first term. Except she is nowhere to be seen and he is revered worldwide. And more importantly got Americans to vote him in for a second term.
That’s the crux of this coming election — do the Liberals deserve to be re-elected and will any other party convince the public that they are better?
If the polls are as tight as they appear to be, all the leaders, whether they loathe each other or not, might consider getting to know each other better. For good or bad.
They are going to need that knowledge and maybe even each other.