It’s better for Singh to be Singh

OAKVILLE, ONT.—This might be a controversial move on my part, but I’m going to defend NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s choice in timepieces. I decided to take this bold action after watching a YouTube show in which Toronto Sun editor Adrienne Batra mocked Singh because he likes to wear an expensive wristwatch. By the way, the watch was a gift from his father and it has sentimental value. Said Batra: “When you’re going on a social media campaign and you’re railing against the so-called ‘rich,' it’s best not to wear a $5,000 Rolex while doing it.” Now, for the record, I can’t confirm if Singh actually wore such a watch while appearing on social media, but for argument’s sake, let’s assume he did. Would that really be such a bad thing? I don’t think so. Now before I get into my reasoning, let me say, I totally understand the point Batra is making. Basically, she’s implying that it’s hypocritical for a socialist politician, like Singh, to attack the wealthy while he himself is not only well off, but worse, he actually likes to flaunt his wealth. I’ve seen similar attacks against Singh from others. People on social media, for example, have castigated the NDP leader for driving fancy cars and for wearing expensive suits. But, it’s important to keep in mind that there’s nothing in the political rulebook that says a rich politician can’t be an effective voice to defend the rights of the poor. Indeed, history is full of examples of wealthy elites standing up for the downtrodden. Heck, way back in the days of the Ancient Roman Republic, Julius Caesar, who hailed from one of Rome’s most prestigious families and who was known for his sartorial splendour, was a noted champion of the plebeian class. More recently, U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt, who basically invented America’s welfare state, just happened to be a patrician elite. Please note, one of the attacks often lodged against Roosevelt by his enemies was that he was a “traitor to his class.” One final example: former U.S. president Donald Trump, who certainly liked to brag about his wealth, managed to win the votes of a huge chunk of America’s working-class vote. At any rate, my point is, Singh wearing a fancy wrist watch doesn’t disqualify him from being a guardian of the nation’s proletariat. Plus, there’s another point to consider. A big part of Singh’s political branding is that he’s a hip, cool, and stylish politician. Were he to heed his critics and downgrade his wardrobe, his fashion accessories and the car he drives so he could appear more like a “regular person," I’d argue he’d lose a lot of his pizzazz. All this leads to a theory I have about politics, namely, that to be successful, a politician has to be real. That’s to say if a politician tries to be something he or she isn’t, it often comes across as inauthentic. And if there’s one thing voters can sniff out, it’s a phony. To see what I mean consider former MP Kellie Leitch’s 2017 campaign for the Conservative Party leadership. Recall, Leitch tried to position herself as a populist taking on the political establishment, even though, as a former “Red Tory” cabinet minister, she was actually part of the political establishment. I’d argue this internal contradiction helped doom her candidacy from the start. She just didn’t seem real. So, I say, it’s better for Singh to be Singh. That’s why if I were a New Democrat strategist, I’d focus on addressing Singh’s true political vulnerabilities: his inability to articulate an alternative progressive vision to the Liberals, his wooden communication style, his overall lack of aggressiveness, etc. I’d leave his wristwatch alone. Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant. The Hill Times