Fearing the Seinfeld election campaign

OTTAWA—Maybe it is the result of being a little bit older or having been in the political arena for a while, but there doesn’t seem to be much excitement in the air heading into the 2019 election. While you now do see lawn signs about and political ads popping up, the energy that usually comes with a national vote hasn’t arrived yet—as far as I can see. Perhaps fixed election dates have taken away some of the suspense of the voting process, or we have so much U.S. politics rammed down our throats, we are immune to a quickened pulse for our own contest. Maybe it’s because we are in a constant campaign mode anyway, or that the leaders don’t turn our crank that the air isn’t crackling with anticipation. Personally, I want to be excited about the Oct. 21 vote, but I am a long way from being there yet. In fact, I fear a dreary, predictable campaign about going forwards or backwards that will have been focus-tested up the wazoo and won’t, beyond message tracts, touch the big issues of the day. Sure, we will hear lots about climate change, but not likely in any meaningful way. “Act or the planet will blow up” will come from one corner, while the other corner will implore that affordability hinges on axing the carbon tax. No doubt we’ll hear we need to deal with China and manage the relationship better with the U.S.A., but will we get into a proper discussion about the rise of nationalism throughout the globe and its threat to our global system? Doubt it. As global society threatens to make a major turn, we’ll probably end up talking more about the prime minister’s socks and the opposition leader’s dimples. Twenty-six years ago, then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell was widely quoted as saying that elections weren’t the time to talk about serious matters. She took some heat for that then—and has since said that her words were taken out of context—but that sentiment, in fact, has been proven right. Maybe not since the 1988 election, which became in large measure about whether Canada would welcome free trade, have Canadians battled it out on the country’s future. Sure, there were some key debates post-Campbell on debt and deficit reduction, and health care funding, but nothing resembling a sustained serious discussion about real choices Canadians should be making. Paul Martin tried to preach about “transformative change” and ended up becoming Mr. Dithers. He became the model of what not to do in modern Canadian campaigns—talk about vision at your peril. While the current prime minister might be inclined to style himself as a visionary modernizer, he is a good transactional politician like those before him. He has the right trinkets and bobbles for the appropriate supportive cohorts. Middle-class tax cuts, as he would describe it, or enhanced maternity-paternity leaves on offer make excellent electoral elixirs. Affordability is supposedly going to be the big 2019 election issue. All parties will be offering some form of an à la carte menu to fill up your pocketbook. None them is likely going to spend much time leading a discussion or trying to persuade us they have the best strategic plan for Canada over the next 20 years. That, though, is what is needed now. Never mind tired tomes about reopening an abortion debate or the pain of a carbon tax—how about some depth of thought on our challenges with demography, what exactly our foreign policy should be, massive economic disruption on numerous fronts, nationalism’s rise, etc. It's hard to get excited about an election campaign that could prove to be quite detached from the actual meaningful matters of our time. Two months of nothing instead a real battle royale over something is what I fear. Tim Powers is vice-chairman of Summa Strategies and managing director of Abacus Data. He is a former adviser to Conservative political leaders. The Hill Times CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that a comment attributed to former prime minister Kim Campbell about an election not being a time to discuss serious issues was not said in jest, and that she later clarified and disputes the context in which it was originally reported in 1993.