Gerry Nicholls: Real Conservatives Run Attack Ads
In the wake of the Progressive Conservatives’ unprecedented surprise re-election in Alberta last month — and by unprecedented surprise, I actually mean their twelfth consecutive victory, which somehow threw our highly paid punditry for a loop — there were a wave of transparently silly post-mortems from columnists seeking excuses for their obviously misguided support for the Wildrose fruitcake party. One of them blamed immigrants. One of them, absurdly, said that the Progressive Conservatives had won for so long that it had become too hard to tell which elections they could win and which they couldn’t.
The latest post-mortem appears courtesy of anti-healthcare, provincial-rights lunatic Gerry Nicholls, formerly Harper’s sidekick at the National Citizen’s Coalition, in the National Post:
One way to turn things around would have been for Wildrose to run ads aimed at degrading Premier Alison Redford and the PC brand name. Yes, I am talking about running “negative” ads. But Wildrose didn’t go negative. Instead they finished up the campaign with positive, jump on the Wildrose bandwagon style ads, the kinds of TV spots you run when undecided voters are leaning in your direction.
Yes, that’s the problem, folks. Wildrose wasn’t negative enough! If they’d just manned up and run some proper attack ads, everything would have been okay. But now, thanks to their cowardice, Nicholls claims that “Canadian conservatism is dead.” Actually I agree with him, if by “Canadian conservatism” he means the politics of John Diefenbaker or even John A. Macdonald. The current crop of “conservatives” never would have supported Confederation if they’d been around at the time, and I’m not sure Nicholls would have either. Confederation gets in the way of the provincial rights of the real nations in Canada, like Alberta!
But I digress. The real point is that it’s nice to have on record, from one of the leading figures in the Canadian neo-conservative movement, his explicit belief that the most important part of a successful political campaign is attack ads. Having better, more popular policies than your opponent? Purging your ranks of fascist crackpots who think gays are destined for a lake of fire or that white people make superior politicians? That’s not nearly as important as cheap and nasty sloganeering about your opponent!
Strangely, this is not the first time Nicholls has gone on record celebrating the value of attack ads. Of course, the only reason you could possibly think that attack ads have any meaningful political value is because you think that the average voter is an easily frightened ignoramus. Is that what Nicholls thinks of the people of Canada?
Tweet
sushi
I do not want to defend Nicholls but the problem is the reality of the situation may be close to what he describes.
The mechanics of decision influence are well known. Slap a “new” label on a product and sales will increase. Position it at eye level and sales increase. Build end of aisle pyramids and sales will increase. Put up a big SALE sign and sales will increase. I once stopped shopping to observe a display in which the same product was available in two sizes. The larger size had a big SALE sign on it but the product was considerably more expensive than the smaller size stacked right next to it. Shoppers picked up the SALE item and left the cheaper item on the shelf. Bizarre.
I suspect the truth of the matter is that we are actually deeply irrational as a species and that we rarely make “decisions” but more often simply act like caribou and follow the herd.
At one time (say back in the 1960′s) we followed the lead of local elites and those local elites probably spent some time calculating the best interests of the group.
Today we believe in our own independence and the acuity of our thought and we reject the entire notion of a local elite and make decisions based on what we learn from a 30 second TV spot. I know I sound cynical but I keep asking myself how Harper got his majority. Why did people vote him in? Everything he has done is just a continuation of what he has done before. Why trust someone who has demonstrated they cannot be trusted?
Sixth Estate
sushi — Let’s suppose everything you say is true. If that’s the case, then surely, by any reasonable and ethical standard, the responsibility of a commentator in a major national media forum is to try to rectify that by drawing attention to the problems in such a system, rather than dispensing more cynical advice about working within it.
In a nutshell, the question for every newspaper editor is: is your first duty to inform public opinion, or to manipulate it?
kootcoot
“The current crop of “conservatives” never would have supported Confederation if they’d been around at the time, and I’m not sure Nicholls would have either. Confederation gets in the way of the provincial rights of the real nations in Canada, like Alberta!”
Great line………………………………
Sixth Estate
kootcoot — Thanks.
Of course, as we all know, the NDP voted against Confederation.
sushi
SE – If the media see themselves as core participants in the development of a rationalist community debate then I think the answer to your question is yes.
But I doubt that the media envision themselves in that way. They are corporate entities and ther responsibility is to thier stockholders and they can best fulfil this responsibilty bu running Margaret Wente columns which mock mainstream science and assure the reader the best thing they can do for the world is to get a fancy pedicure with fiery red toenails to match thier new Italian sportscar.
The glorification of consumption comes first. Buttering up the Great Canadian Decider who spends 18% of the CDN advertising budget is second and the promotion of rationalist and constructive debate is . . .Hold Everything!! Details of the new iPhone are just now coming across the wire. We’ll have the full story after coverage of how to decorate your multi-level penthouse for less than $60m!!!!
—
Are you sure all the NDP voted against Confederation? I saw the PEI picture and there were a bunch of guys in it who had beards
Sixth Estate
Well, I tend to agree, though perhaps it’s just from overdosing on Noam Chomsky years ago. In any case, do editors actually see themselves that way? Then they should say so explicitly, instead of pretending otherwise. They cannot have it both ways any longer.
Yes, I can definitely confirm that the NDP voted against Confederation. It was just a few years after they voted against the first Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. At the time, the NDP was also on the side of the Southern slave owners. They opposed the abolition movement.
The real doozie of a question is: did the NDP side with the violent radical anarchist rebels in the Lower Canada Rebellion, or did they side with the elitist, latte-sipping, foreign-money-laundering seigneurs? I don’t know, but I’m quite sure they sided with whichever group will make them look worse today!
sushi
Man o man! I was just about to pour a nice single malt and begin celebrating the War of 1812 and now I have to hit the books to try and determine the role of the NDP in that conflict.
If you listen to the 1812 Overture, just after the cannons go off, you can hear what sounds to be Mulcair’s grand pere muttering darkly. Damned if I can make out what he’s saying.
Sixth Estate
Don’t bother researching it. I can tell you right now, they were all out ready to welcome the Americans in. That’s where the foreign funding scandal started, you know. Most of the environmentalist groups were founded by American money in 1812 in order to promote an American invasion.
Sir Francis
Is that what Nicholls thinks of the people of Canada?
Of course it is. Don’t take it personally, though. Globalist neo-liberals despise all states and civic entities, not just their own.
To illustrate, a news story appeared a few years ago about why Harper changed the way he marketed Canada’s participation in the occupation of Afghanistan: public opinion research had found that Canadians responded most favourably to a humanitarian/altruistic motivation for being there. Shortly thereafter, arguments about the need to seek and destroy the Taliban (Rick Hillier’s anti-”scumbags” mission) disappeared, replaced by bleeding-heart hectoring about the need to build schools and hospitals and to protect Afghan women.
Amazing. Harper had to be told, had to be convinced through the application of market research science, that Canadians were more eager to help people than to see them slaughtered. This was news to him. A more glaring example of contempt for one’s own people could hardly be imagined.
Sixth Estate
Somehow that story doesn’t really surprise me.
sushi
What surprises me is that Harper did not use this new market research to advocate the Canadian forces purchase a super bomber able to drop schools and hospitals from 40,000 feet on to the undeserving scumbags below.
—
SE
I have followed your lead and started my own blog. If you check it out you will find that I am working hard to put the cat amidst the pigeons
Sixth Estate
Sushi — Good for you.
If you ever want that guest post here, send me something and we’ll work it out.