The Liberals have work to do

I wrote a blog a few weeks ago about a direction for the Liberal party in Canadian politics. I argued that they should attempt to take the centre, since two ideological parties already occupy the left and right portions of the present political framework.

However, I may have failed to articulate the difficulty of this staggering task.

The current "frame" of political dialogue was brought about by Stephen Harper's polarizing, wedge style rhetoric. This tactic, while damaging to an honest debate, is extremely effective.

Mr Rae recently stated “His {Harper's} is still a politics that polarizes, that divides, and that excludes... Pride like this will only be followed by a fall.” While I agree with this comment, it should be noted that that fall will move to the left, not centre.

Once the discussion is split into "blacks or whites", the grey's are effectively muted, as their messages are more complex, and contain components of both black and white. This will make enemies on both sides, and friends with neither.

To break the wedge, you must engage this divisive style with bluntness, and preferably some ridicule. Any intellectual appeal to reason or facts will result in the loss of the audience.

Even journalists fall prey, as was demonstrated by Power & Politics host Rosemarie Barton, who prodded Bob Rae, insisting the Liberals had no position regarding the postal lockout issue. This query, by an experienced reporter, demonstrates the difficulty of maintaining the centre position in a polarized political atmosphere.

Liberal leader Bob Rae was required to restate the Liberal position, but it lacked brevity. In polarized politics, issues are presented as "black or white", "left or right", etc. and it is the succinctness of the message that is powerful.

A well articulated, but nuanced policy cannot sway the masses. Many people wish that this worked, but in the modern "on demand" culture, it never will.

During the postal lockout, the 'centre' position should have been something like:

"Fire the management (CEO), and pass back to work legislation."

The message is short and clear. It also satisfies or disarms both the union and corporation, which are the vested interests in the debate.

It is irrelevant as to whether this is a perfect policy, it is one of the few political messages that could be used in that situation - because it breaks the wedge. You've attacked both sides and resolved the situation. The other parties would be forced to agree with half of your policy, and defend why they wouldn't support the other half. But this only works if the message is brief and aimed equally at both sides.

This is the unfortunate reality of modern politics. Whoever descends into an explanation of a policy is roasted on a spit. Conservatives understand this, and deny that controversial decisions require explanations. They simply say "We feel this is the right decision for Canada". By not explaining, they are providing no fodder to be throw back. Despicable yes, but it has proven results.

I'm not arguing that the Liberals emulate Conservative shenanigans, but rather abuse them at their own game. The Liberals must put forward ideas that attack the very wedge that the Conservatives use to their advantage, driving them into deep explanations of their decisions. Each and every failure to blunt the impact of polarization plays directly into NDP and Conservative laps.

A good place to start is with an analysis of the Conservative bread and butter: Fear and derision of ambiguity. Minimize, or remove these two strengths, and their communications fall flat. But don't forget the NDP at your back either.

Going forward, the Liberals must choose policies that attack both sides, or issues which neither side has raised previously (and then promote it quickly to keep ownership). The Conservatives and NDP have the luxury of lumping the Liberals with their enemy (already practiced by the CPC).

The Liberals are still underestimating the significance of the last election - the worst popular vote and seat count in the parties entire history.

If the party fails to break the frame, or is unwilling to do what it takes, then they might as well just merge with the NDP now, relegating Canada to a two party system.

Maybe the Liberals could use a grassroots organisational primer, in which case I recommend reviewing my blog "Rules for Radicals" and the 13 tactics underdogs can employ in their struggles. But now I'm just self-promoting.

Cheers!