|
Monday May 8 2006 |
BACK |
NEXT
IGNATIEFF SECRET WEAPON, WINNABILITY
by Angelo Persichilli
THE HILL TIMES
One of the key words during a political leadership race is “winnability”.
When the organizers of a candidate realize that their pick has not much
traction with the members of the party, they widen the boundaries of debate
beyond the party, to include the entire electorate. The standard phrase used
by the so-called strategists is, “Yes, candidate ‘B’ can win the leadership,
but only candidate ‘A’ can win a general election. “ The candidate “A “is,
of course, Michael Ignatieff, while candidate “B “are all the others (last
time I counted they were 11 candidates).
Some of the “trombones “who parachuted Ignatieff into
Canadian politics some months ago, comparing him to the Pierre Trudeau of
the new millennium, have realized that their messiah hasn’t much to say to
the Liberal crowd, even though he says so very well.
I know that Mr. Ignatieff is an accomplished writer and a
respected academic.
But the role of a Prime minister is to write budgets, not
books. It’s to understand people, not lecture them. Is he capable of doing
that? I don’t know. But definitely his handlers haven’t done a good job of
convincing a lot of people.
Then comes the magic word: “winnability. “ When this word
comes out in a political debate, it means that the candidate has problems
within the political organization he or she belongs to.
First, I don’t understand why Mr. Ignatieff has the gift of
“winnability” with Canadians, but not with the Liberals.
Second, I don’t believe that resorting to this gimmick, I
mean “winnability”, has ever helped any political organization.
I remember in 1984 when Liberals dumped Jean Chrétien
because John Turner was the one who was considered the best candidate to win
the country. I also remember when Kim Campbell was chosen over Jean Charest
because she was the one with the “winnability “factor.
On the other hand, I recall the goofy and election-loosing
image of David Peterson in the 1980s which then became the symbol of change
and success only because Gabor Apor applied to the “product" some
contact lenses, a red tie and short sleeves.
Not to mention the thaumaturgic power attributed to former
prime minister Paul Martin who convinced Liberals that he could walk on
water and sail them through the turbulent waters of the “Sponsorship Lake."
And don’t forget the media pundits who described, not so long ago, the new
leader of the Conservative Party as unable to win and a person who will
never become Prime Minister.
Remember the steely, expressionless, cold Stephen Harper?
Well, under the sleepy eyes of all pundits, strategists and experts, he took
over an ailing Canadian Alliance, he united the right, got elected as leader
of the new Conservative Party, reduced the Liberals first from a healthy
majority to a minority government and then won government. He brought
together a bunch of people whose only thing in common was that they hated
one another, but he led his party from opposition to a minority government.
Do you want to make a bet on what’s going to happen next? A
wild guess: majority? Not bad for someone that was not able to win.
In the middle of all this real politics, some Liberal
trombones, as I like to call them, who are unable to rejuvenate their
thinking, are resorting to the same old strategies that have been proven
wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Ignatieff, but if he wants
to become the leader of Liberal Party, he needs a different strategy and
definitely different strategists.
In an era when new technology and media evolution allow
intelligent strategists to “package" their candidates like a soap or Coca
Cola (otherwise why would George Bush Jr. be President of the United
States?), the word “winnability" has been already recalled from the
political jargon.
If anything, this word can be applied to the team around the
candidate, not the candidate itself. In this case, you can say that the team
behind Mr. Ignatieff is not “winnable”.
|
