Political ‘hired guns’ like to keep policies simple

OAKVILLE, ONT.—With a federal election looming, strategists from all the major political parties are currently trying to figure out which policies their leaders should promote. And when I say that, I don’t mean they’re researching which policies are best for the economy or best for the environment or best fighting for COVID; what I mean is they’re asking themselves one simple question: what policies would help us win an election? That’s their litmus test for what makes “good” policy. Yes, I know that sounds jaded and cynical, but keep in mind, strategists are not policy wonks, they’re political warriors who want to get their leader elected. What’s more, this “winning is everything” attitude is even stronger in freelance professional consultants, whom political parties often hire to help them design a winning campaign message. Remember, these “hired guns” are judged and evaluated on their won-lost record. My point is political consultants and party strategists are heavily incentivized to push for a policy formula that first and foremost will work electorally. So, what makes for a politically effective policy? Well, first off strategists want a policy that’s easy to understand and that can be communicated quickly and concisely: “Tax the Rich," “Cut Government Waste," “Help the Middle Class.” We saw such a concise policy in the 2006 federal election, when the Conservatives pledged to slash the GST. In other words, party strategists will usually want to avoid policy ideas that have lots of details or moving parts, since, from their point of view, a complicated policy proposal risks alienating voters. The classic example of this was the Liberal Party’s complex “Green Shift” policy plan that was pushed in the 2008 federal election. Nobody really understood it, and the Conservatives easily branded it as a “tax on everything.” Mind you, truth be told, strategists would be happy if they could run a campaign without promoting any sort of major policy initiatives; they’d much rather focus on the sizzle instead of the steak. And yes, this is possible. For instance, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau basically won the 2015 federal election, based on his winning, rock-star, personality. His policies went largely unnoticed. At any rate, you can see how this perspective of a party strategist will often clash with views of a party’s ideologues. After all, for most ideologues, ideas are everything. Thus, I’m guessing there’s something of a schism right now between the NDP’s strategists and the NDP’s rank-and-file, who at their recent online convention were pushing for policy resolutions that included, nationalizing “big oil," removing all statues of John A. Macdonald and even phasing out the Canadian military. If the party’s strategists have anything to say about it, none of these controversial and potentially unpopular policies will wind up getting much play. Maybe this is why some deeply ideological parties are against the idea of taking on a political consultant. Recall the controversy that erupted within the Green Party a few years ago after it hired noted political brawler Warren Kinsella. Of course, political strategists aren’t always right and ideologues aren’t always wrong. Consider, for example, the 2016 Republican presidential primary, where Donald Trump enthusiastically embraced the ideas and values of the party’s right-wing populists and then proceeded to crush his rivals along with their high-priced political consultants. Yet, at the end of the day, party leaders will typically follow the advice of their strategists, who can prove their case with polling data and market research. This is why election campaigns are the way they are, i.e., often devoid of any “important” policy debates. For political strategists, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant. The Hill Times