The realm of politics belongs as much to the political consultants as it does those they put in office. Long gone are the days when a candidate’s platform decided the outcome of an election; today every candidate goes through the spin cycle before being thrust onstage, and his appearance can be as important as his ideals. The role of the political consultant is nebulous, but in the age of social media and 24 hour news, the first thing a political candidate must be, let’s face it, is attractive.
Last year’s film “The Campaign” starring Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrell was a beautiful spoof of the role special interest groups and political consultants play in grooming random nobodies to do their bidding in Washington. But what happens with the ungroomed? Can an intellectual with no charisma but decent experience and well-thought political goals still win an election? To answer this question I would point to the startling recent failures of the Canadian Liberal party.
For nearly a decade the Liberals have had to contend with lure-less intellectuals with brilliant platforms and as much charm as a bowl of bran flakes. Stéphane Dion, who took over the Liberal leadership after the sponsorship scandal, was a PhD from Sciences Po. Paris, one of the most prestigious political science institutes in the world. He spent a decade teaching public administration at a number of universities before being snapped up by Chrétien for a cabinet position in 1996. Dion ran on an intelligent, three-pillared approach that focused on social justice, economic prosperity, and environmental sustainability. Having spent two years as Minister of the Environment, Dion had a number of forward-thinking approaches on how to become a global leader in the environment through technology and innovation. He sought to create a “hyper-educated” Canadian workforce to maintain Canada’s competitiveness with the emerging economies. Dion was a low-key political figure, a true academic, and someone utterly forgettable; the late Jack Layton once described him as “a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected…”, a quote turned prophecy.
After the disastrous failure of Dion, the Liberal party turned to bigger guns: Michael Ignatieff, a bigger, better, more badass academic but with a similar bran flake personality. In opinion polls done by QMI agency in 2010, Ignatieff scored lower than Stephen Harper on nearly every single question ranging from how determined or relatable the candidate was to how brave and insightful the voter found them. The electorate even considered Harper the more intelligent of the two despite Ignatieff’s PhD from Harvard, teaching years at Cambridge and his multiple books and numerous accolades. Comparatively, Stephen Harper’s M.A. in economics from the University of Calgary lacks sheen. Ignatieff’s inability to appeal to the electorate, to come across as charming, or at least relatable to Canadians led to an election that saw the Liberal party crippled; Ignatieff couldn’t even convince his own riding, and ended up losing his own seat.
Now, after a couple of years of licking wounds, the Liberal Party is back, and they seem to have learned their lesson. In April, a retired military officer, former astronaut, and engineer with an impeccable political record lost the leadership race to a very pretty boy. Justin Trudeau is the candidate the Grits have been longing for; an agent of legacy, he is young, handsome, charming and charismatic. In other words: everything that has been missing from Canadian leadership since, well, his father. With B.A.s in education and literature and several abandoned attempts at acting, studying engineering and environmental geography, his CV reads starkly differently from his predecessors. While his bran flake precursors were establishing themselves as leaders in the field and study of effective governance, JT seemed to be, like many fellow Gen Xers, trying to find himself in a plethora of pursuits, none politically inclined. His appeal lies not in his proven ability, nor even in swollen campaign promises which have yet to make an appearance. Trudeau’s policies are not entirely clear, his campaign website is dripping with colloquialisms, and his personal statement section has more clichés than platforms. Phrases like “I love this country and I want to serve it” or “This may be old fashioned, but part of what it means to be a citizen is to step up and serve when you think you can make a positive difference” stand in lieu of anything concrete regarding foreign or domestic policy shifts.
Mark Garneau, our beloved astronaut, condemned Trudeau’s lack of platforms and challenged him to a debate he felt would establish a clear leader capable of seeing the Liberals through to victory in the next elections. Trudeau declined. With no debate Garneau bowed out of the race on March 13th, claiming that as a proud Liberal he had to respect the numbers and the numbers showed support fell behind Trudeau and not himself. He avoided questions at the press conference regarding his claim that his opponent lacked not only experience but substance, toeing party lines and claiming he believes Trudeau will be the next Canadian Prime Minister.
Garneau’s decision to back out was more than altruism on his part: having done little to earn it, the Liberals just plain love Trudeau as evidenced by his pulling of over 80% of the party’s support. It seems that the place of the uncharismatic, unattractive intellectual in politics is waning, and not even an astronaut can compete with the guy you would have voted prom king. With nothing solid supporting Trudeau’s abilities or even his goals as PM we can be sure the Liberals have learned one lesson: capacity to lead is less important than capacity to get elected. The Liberals will have an uphill battle with such an inexperienced candidate, but stand firmly in their position to choose grooming over gray matter. Relatability over reliability. Trudeau’s charming smile and sparkly eyes combined with the nation’s love for his father have won him the heart of his party, and may very well win him the country. What remains to be seen is what he does with it.
The realm of politics belongs as much to the political consultants as it does those they put in office. Long gone are the days when a candidate’s platform decided the outcome of an election; today every candidate goes through the spin cycle before being thrust onstage, and his appearance can be as important as his ideals. The role of the political consultant is nebulous, but in the age of social media and 24 hour news, the first thing a political candidate must be, let’s face it, is attractive.
Last year’s film “The Campaign” starring Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrell was a beautiful spoof of the role special interest groups and political consultants play in grooming random nobodies to do their bidding in Washington. But what happens with the ungroomed? Can an intellectual with no charisma but decent experience and well-thought political goals still win an election? To answer this question I would point to the startling recent failures of the Canadian Liberal party.
For nearly a decade the Liberals have had to contend with lure-less intellectuals with brilliant platforms and as much charm as a bowl of bran flakes. Stéphane Dion, who took over the Liberal leadership after the sponsorship scandal, was a PhD from Sciences Po. Paris, one of the most prestigious political science institutes in the world. He spent a decade teaching public administration at a number of universities before being snapped up by Chrétien for a cabinet position in 1996. Dion ran on an intelligent, three-pillared approach that focused on social justice, economic prosperity, and environmental sustainability. Having spent two years as Minister of the Environment, Dion had a number of forward-thinking approaches on how to become a global leader in the environment through technology and innovation. He sought to create a “hyper-educated” Canadian workforce to maintain Canada’s competitiveness with the emerging economies. Dion was a low-key political figure, a true academic, and someone utterly forgettable; the late Jack Layton once described him as “a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected…”, a quote turned prophecy.
After the disastrous failure of Dion, the Liberal party turned to bigger guns: Michael Ignatieff, a bigger, better, more badass academic but with a similar bran flake personality. In opinion polls done by QMI agency in 2010, Ignatieff scored lower than Stephen Harper on nearly every single question ranging from how determined or relatable the candidate was to how brave and insightful the voter found them. The electorate even considered Harper the more intelligent of the two despite Ignatieff’s PhD from Harvard, teaching years at Cambridge and his multiple books and numerous accolades. Comparatively, Stephen Harper’s M.A. in economics from the University of Calgary lacks sheen. Ignatieff’s inability to appeal to the electorate, to come across as charming, or at least relatable to Canadians led to an election that saw the Liberal party crippled; Ignatieff couldn’t even convince his own riding, and ended up losing his own seat.
Now, after a couple of years of licking wounds, the Liberal Party is back, and they seem to have learned their lesson. In April, a retired military officer, former astronaut, and engineer with an impeccable political record lost the leadership race to a very pretty boy. Justin Trudeau is the candidate the Grits have been longing for; an agent of legacy, he is young, handsome, charming and charismatic. In other words: everything that has been missing from Canadian leadership since, well, his father. With B.A.s in education and literature and several abandoned attempts at acting, studying engineering and environmental geography, his CV reads starkly differently from his predecessors. While his bran flake precursors were establishing themselves as leaders in the field and study of effective governance, JT seemed to be, like many fellow Gen Xers, trying to find himself in a plethora of pursuits, none politically inclined. His appeal lies not in his proven ability, nor even in swollen campaign promises which have yet to make an appearance. Trudeau’s policies are not entirely clear, his campaign website is dripping with colloquialisms, and his personal statement section has more clichés than platforms. Phrases like “I love this country and I want to serve it” or “This may be old fashioned, but part of what it means to be a citizen is to step up and serve when you think you can make a positive difference” stand in lieu of anything concrete regarding foreign or domestic policy shifts.
Mark Garneau, our beloved astronaut, condemned Trudeau’s lack of platforms and challenged him to a debate he felt would establish a clear leader capable of seeing the Liberals through to victory in the next elections. Trudeau declined. With no debate Garneau bowed out of the race on March 13th, claiming that as a proud Liberal he had to respect the numbers and the numbers showed support fell behind Trudeau and not himself. He avoided questions at the press conference regarding his claim that his opponent lacked not only experience but substance, toeing party lines and claiming he believes Trudeau will be the next Canadian Prime Minister.
Garneau’s decision to back out was more than altruism on his part: having done little to earn it, the Liberals just plain love Trudeau as evidenced by his pulling of over 80% of the party’s support. It seems that the place of the uncharismatic, unattractive intellectual in politics is waning, and not even an astronaut can compete with the guy you would have voted prom king. With nothing solid supporting Trudeau’s abilities or even his goals as PM we can be sure the Liberals have learned one lesson: capacity to lead is less important than capacity to get elected. The Liberals will have an uphill battle with such an inexperienced candidate, but stand firmly in their position to choose grooming over gray matter. Relatability over reliability. Trudeau’s charming smile and sparkly eyes combined with the nation’s love for his father have won him the heart of his party, and may very well win him the country. What remains to be seen is what he does with it.