The reason why Rob Ford won in Toronto and John Tory lost

The results of Monday’s municipal election in Toronto validated a theory I have been evangelizing for some time in this space. My hypothesis is that the conventional wisdom, that moderate conservatism appeals to ‘moderate’ voters more than principled conservatism, is wrong. In fact, I assert, principled conservatism has the greater track record of success among centrist voters and the uncommitted.

The Red Tory line is that if the left puts forward a set of policies x and the right puts forward a set of policies y, then the voter in the ‘middle’ will favour something midway between x and y. Therefore, to get their vote, some of your more ‘extreme’ policies have to be jettisoned. 

I contend that us political junkies (both on the left and the right) completely misunderstand the motivations of the uncommitted voter. We project out interests onto them and assume that because we are interested in public policy, then they must be as well. In reality, the centrist voter doesn’t care a whit about policies at all. He finds political policy boring and bases his decision on other factors entirely. To call him a ‘moderate’ is to completely mischaracterize him, which is why I have put the word ‘moderate’ in scare quotes as many times as I can. 

Typically, the ‘moderate’ votes for the candidate who he thinks is the best leader, irrespective of policies, which he assumes are lies anyway. What is a good leader? The leader must be decisive, resolute, fearless and calm – in short, an alpha male. Why does the ‘moderate’ favour alpha males? It is natural for humans to follow the alpha male because back on the good ‘ol hunter-gatherer days your chances of survival varied directly with how good your leader was. You don’t follow a beta male wuss, even if he is a nice guy, because he will get you killed. On the other had, you have a fighting chance if an alpha male a-hole leads your pack. Us policy wonks forget how natural this way of thinking is because we are surrounded by other weirdoes who are as obsessed with the minutiae of public policy as we are.

How do the ‘moderates’ assess leadership ability? A great resume – being a former CEO, governor or military leader helps. The trouble is however, unless this service was publicly demonstrated (i.e. Steve Jobs, Rudy Giuliani, Dwight Eisenhower), it’s all abstract. What is more real and vivid? How the candidate handles himself in the campaign: Does he allow himself to be taken off message? Does he cope well with scandals? Does he apologize when he doesn’t have to? Does he get flustered by distractions? Does he make excuses and whine when things go wrong? Or is he calm and cool during the debate? Does he have a clear message? Does he inspire?

The answers to these questions tells us why Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Mike Harris and Rob Ford got the uncommitted vote even though they were more extreme than the people who elected them. This is also why John Turner, Paul Martin, Ernie Eves and John Tory failed even though they were arguably closer to the voters policy-wise.

The people want to follow a leader. They want to be convinced. They don’t want the leader to come to them. A leader who comes to them isn’t a real leader and will be despised. This is an important point. Non-leaders will not simply be poorly regarded; they will be actively hated - even if they are nice guys. In contrast, a real leader will be always be highly regarded even if he is a bastard.

Rob Ford impressed the non-political voter in Toronto because he had a strong, clear message and stuck to it no matter what the Toronto Star threw at him. Conversely, moderate John Tory was completely shut out of Toronto in the last provincial election because his mishandling of the faith-based school funding issue proved he didn’t have the right stuff. The fact that the funding of faith-based schools was a comparatively unimportant issue was beside the point. By the time Tory dumped that policy, the voter’s real concern was Tory’s leadership skills. When he changed his mind, he merely confirmed their negative impression of him. The great counterintuitive truth is that the uncommitted voter cares less about what you believe in than in how you champion it. 

Incidentally, this was the secret behind David Miller’s first mayoral campaign in Toronto. His vigorous and resolute championship of the island bridge issue – an issue that affected only a small percentage of Torontonians – impressed the voters.

This is why the Red Tory strategy of moving to the middle is usually such a disaster. The endless compromising alienates the core-issue voters and the lack of resolution proves to the independents that the Red Tory has no balls. The Red Tory loses both ways.

Comments

[CanadianSense]

Many voters in Toronto did not listen to expert opinion forwarded by the Toronto Star or Globe & Mail.

The campaign against Ford was the opposite against the winner in Calgary.

Both had spent time in "listening" to the disinterested voters of mainstream politics.

Both deployed messages that resonated and drove the call the action to the ballot.

The Calgary mayor elect did not face the level of scrutiny or attack from his opponents. The attack and hope to dismiss Rob Ford as a credible candidate failed and likely may have helped propel him to the front with the free publicity.

[real conservative]

When there are problems, you must take corrective action. Half hearted solutions to problems lead to more problems.

[WiseGuy]

There is one bit more to Ford's victory, in addition to running a great campaign.

Ford already had a reputation for opposing over-spending. This made his pledge to "stop the gravy train", credible.

Would he have won without credibility? I wonder.

[George Smith]

I'm not a voter in Toronto ... so my opinion may be discarded. However, there is a world outside of the 416 ... and we sometimes also get it right.

I believe that voters were willing to go to a candidate who stated his position clearly and without equivocation. Principles do have an appeal ... especially after years of the warm and fuzzies.

Of course, a candidate's dependence on principles eliminates the need for all those professional consultants and political aides. Obviously, then, this cannot be allowed ... so the vested ones will gang up on the principled one. We should help him resist and defeat them.

Regards.