DEBATE 2004
Here’s my punchy, shallow summary of the 2004 Canadian election debate! Taking my cue from the debaters, I will refrain from addressing any actual political issues. Instead, I will restrict my comments to the ‘image’ and ‘brand message’ that the candidates are going through so much trouble over. The substance of the debate is entirely irrelevant to the electoral process, it’s merely a dog-and-pony show, (mostly a dog show).
Paul Martin made a pretty egregious crack about Jack Layton’s “handlers” telling him to talk nonstop. Chretien could really deliver digs like that. If Chretien had said it, I would would have spouted my gin’n juice from my nostrils. Even Duceppe (OR WHATEVER) lauched a few scud missles of witticism across the bow of Martin’s pomposity. Coming from Martin, the metacomment seemed bizarre and vicious. It’s because he looks (and acts) like a slick, soulless capitalist, no doubt. Layton’s indignation was righteously well-played.
Overall Layton came off the best, I thought. He started out rocky, overselling his optimistic positivity brand. Inevitably, it sounded calculated and pandering. I, for one, do not give a fuck what your image consultants have to say, and I’m certainly not going to vote on a pro-optimism platform. “Hey everybody! Let’s all be optimistic about our glorious future of positive togetherness! Healthcare and handjobs for everyone!” It was grating in the extreme. He came off better when it got down and dirty, because he was really the only person on that stage who could pull off the moral superiority necessary for an effective character-attack. And Martin was right: he did talk non-stop, and that was obviously a considered strategy. He desperately wants to be seen as a serious contender, and the only way to do that is to make sure you’re getting lots of that sweet sweet limelight. I definitely consider him a more serious contender after that debate, although that’s mostly because Stephen Harper is so utterly repellant.
Stephen Harper’s handlers told him the exact opposite of Layton’s. “Just attack and then shut the fuck up,” they said. “People want to vote Conservative to punish the Liberals. If you keep quiet, nobody will realize that you’re a centipide-filled robot.” This strategy, while reasonable, made Harper seem like he was moping through the whole thing. Whenever he wasn’t speaking he had a sour, petulant look on his face. Instead of appearing “statesman-like” (as one post-game image consultant said), he just gave the impression of pouting because everybody hates him.
The theme of this debate was Image Management. It’s sad but inevitable that fads of marketing are embraced with gusto by the electoral process. The worst part by far of the whole televised debate (on Global anyways) was the utterly fucking ridiculous focus group insta-poll. See people’s reactions IN REAL TIME as they twist a little knob according to the vague sensations of ‘agreement’ or ‘disagreement’ that flit through their awareness! Wow!! The little bar — which actually took up the bottom half of the screen, another quarter of which was taken up by reaction-shots of the knob-twiddlers — would show how far their knobs were twiddled towards “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Disagree” during the debate.
Predictably, the measurement seemed to fluxuate mostly at random. At times it seemed to correspond to, if anything, the tone of the speaker more than the points being made. Anytime there was a gracious or generous comment made, agreement edged upward. Anytime there was any hint of defensiveness or hostility, disagreement was rampant. I think it was more a “to what extent are you repulsed by this person’s very existence”-meter than any sort of comment on policy preferences. All candidates started out as moderately disagreable, and then edged upward towards neutrality as the knob-twiddlers got bored.
What this focus-grope* was supposed to add to the debate is unclear. In the pre-coverage, someone claimed that in after past debates, the editorial analysis on TV and in newspapers tends to diverge from the reaction of “the average person” who doesn’t read/watch any of the mainstream recap. Obviously. The average person is not very perceptive. The average person is an idiot. At least journalists and their interview panels are professionals who are expected to think carefully and form reasoned opinions about the debate. If I disagree, I should wonder about my interpretation and maybe rethink my opinions. In fact, I respect the opinion of anyone able to muster some coherent interpretation. I could care less what Joe-from-Toronto’s viceral phenomenology of agreement was like during the debate.
I think I’ll vote NDP, but only because Layton doesn’t make me want to projectile vomit from every orifice.
*focus-grope: a focus group which is given exceptionally vague goals and directions to ‘intuit’ feelings or reaction about some subject or product. The subjects then grope around in the dark for ways to please the experimenters by reacting in the appropriate way. (Actually I just misspelled ‘focus-group’ but I think it’s apropos.)