Canadian Cincinnatus

Waiting for Obamacare to fail: a terrible political strategy

Many conservative commentators and Republican politicians - spooked by Ted Cruz’s filibuster - have proposed the alternate strategy of doing nothing and letting Obamacare blow up. The thinking goes: Obamacare is a “train wreck” (in the words of one of its architects), the American people overwhelmingly hate it, its unpopularity is increasing over time and it will collapse under its own weight when it is fully implemented. Therefore, the Republicans should stand back, watch it crumble, and then pick up the electoral pieces when it does.

My problem with this line of thought is that, even if all of the underlying assumptions are true (and I believe that they are), why would the failure of Obamacare inspire American voters to vote for Republicans?

To see what I am getting at, let me rephrase my question: why would the Obamacare implosion cause voters to flock to a party that correctly foresaw the unfolding public policy disaster but chose not to fight its implementation because they thought they could cynically exploit the ensuing calamity for their own ends?

I wouldn’t want to vote for creeps like that either. Wouldn’t it be more likely the case that it would reinforce the notion, already strongly held by the ‘independents’ that “they’re all the same bunch of crooks”? How exactly do images of John McCain’s bipartisan backscratchin’ with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer brand the GOP as the party opposed to Obamacare?

The advantage of spirited battles, even ones that fail - like Ted Cruz’s filibuster - is that it sharpens up and differentiates party positions: if D is for x and R is against x, and you are against x, you vote for R. If the Republicans fail to stop Obamacare, and Obamacare fails, and the GOP gains electorally from it; it will be because of the clarity Ted Cruz brought to the debate - and because he succeeded in overcoming the oppo research fed to Chris Wallace by shadowy GOP operatives, and myopic tactics inspired by cowardice, such as this. 

And then there is this: what if it doesn’t collapse, but somehow simply lumbers on, being a drag on the American economy for the next century while at the same time remaining politically impossible to repeal thanks to a minority block of Americans who directly benefit from it?

NDP MP Pat Martin and his legal defense fund

According to the National Post:

Documents filed with the federal ethics commissioner by the Manitoba MP earlier this month show he accepted contributions to a legal defence fund from the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and 14 other unions or locals.

The donations are being used the repay a loan Martin received from the New Democratic Party of Canada to settle the legal case.

You know what? I’m personally OK with this… just like I am OK with Stephen Harper’s former Chief of Staff writing a cheque to bail out Senator Mike Duffy when he couldn’t repay his expenses.

Unfortunately for Pat, the law is not as laissez faire as I am: 

Political contributions from unions have been illegal at the federal level since 2004, but Martin says these donations to his legal defence are considered “gifts” to him personally under ethics rules, even though he will never see the money. 

The problem here - and with the Duffy-PMO Chief of Staff scandal - is that campaign finance has become so over-regulated that it is impossible for public officials to function. The end result is a never-ending series of scandals over ever-more technical violations of ever-more legalistic laws. One of the many problems with this is that there are genuine conflict-of-interest violations out there but now each is obscured by a thousand items of nonsense like this.

The moral of the story? Over-regulation is bad, even if it comes to politicians.

Of course, from the perspective of partisan warfare, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

How you can tell that the Republicans are on the right track in their effort to defund Obamacare

I have no idea if the conservative Republicans, led by Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, will ultimately triumph in their latest effort to defund Obamacare but one thing we can all be sure of: that the effort is not as politically suicidal as the timid Republican establishment seems to think. How do I know? Simple: look at all the wailing by Democrat politicians and their courtiers in the press. If your competitor were about stick his head in a buzz saw, would you cry “Wait! For the love of God, don’t do that!” Or would you stand back and let him, sporting a wry smile while he commits suicide. 

Yet More Practical Rules For Would-Be Conservative Politicians

Previously, I had reviewed some great political rules that had been compiled by the Baseball Crank. Here is the last installment of this feature:

47-If you're not making enemies among liberals, you're doing it wrong.

You can tell a lot about a man by the character of his enemies - which is one reason why I like Sarah Palin. In an election campaign, a conservative candidate should always conduct himself in such a way that, were he to lose, his political enemies would still find him distasteful. That John McCain is today the Democrat’s favourite Republican says nothing kind about John McCain.

49-The goal is to win the election, not just the primary. Never box yourself in to win a primary in a way that will cause you to lose the election.

Expediency is the way of the Red Tory weakling. Cf. Joe Clarke with regard to David Orchard.

50-Don't bother making friends in the primary who won't support you in the general. Good press for being the reasonable Republican will evaporate when the choice is between you and a Democrat.

There is a story I heard - probably apocryphal - about John McCain’s 2008 campaign. After he had secured his nomination, he remarked to an aide that all his work cultivating the mainstream press was now going to pay off big time. Like many such stories, it contains so much truth in it that, even if it isn’t strictly true, it should be. What a fool!

52-Don't actively work to alienate your base during the primary. Everyone expects you to do it in the general, and you gain nothing for it in the primary.

This is the principal reason why Red Tories have such a dismal record on election day even though they receive so much glowing press.

53-Don't save cash; it's easier to raise money after a win than to win with cash you saved while losing. But make sure your organization can run on fumes now and then during dry spells.

The best financial advice I have heard about campaigning.

61-Use polling properly. Good polling will not tell you what to believe, but will tell you how to sell what you already believe.

Public opinion polls and focus groups are excellent tools that get a bad name thanks to all the spineless, unprincipled candidates who misuse them. If you don’t know what you believe in or have anything to fight for, all the polling data in the world can’t help you. Apparently, in the 2003 Ontario provincial election, Ernie Eves broke the bank of the Progressive Conservative party with all the polls he commissioned. He still got shellacked by the man he had portrayed as a wimp.

68-Every leak from your campaign should help your campaign. Treat staffers who leak unfavorable things to the press the way you would treat staffers who embezzle your money. Money's easier to replace.

The last part bears restating: good ideas are more valuable than campaign cash.

70-If you are convinced that a particular running mate will save you from losing, resign yourself to losing because you've already lost.

If you aren’t fighting for what you believe in, all the gimmicks in the world won’t save you.

But as Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing.

More Rules For Conservative Politicians

Previously, I had reviewed some great political rules that had been compiled by the Baseball Crank, that are applicable to Canadian conservatives as well. Here’s a few more: 

20-Optimism wins. If you are going to be a warrior, be a happy warrior. Anger turns people off, so laugh at yourself and the other side whenever possible, even in a heated argument.

Ronald Reagan may have not shied away from doing unpleasant but necessary things, but he always maintained a sunny, optimistic disposition.

22-Your biography is the opening act. Your policy proposals and principles are the headliner. Never confuse the two. The voters know the difference.

Depending on your biography to win leaves you vulnerable to personal attack. When you run because you’re such a great guy and the opposition demonstrates that you are a cad, what do you do then? Cf. John Kerry and Vietnam. But if you run as a standard-bearer of an idea, people will be much more tolerant of your personal failings because they want your ideas to win. Cf. Rob Ford.

23-Show, don't tell. Proclaiming your conservatism is meaningless, and it's harder to sell to the unconverted than policy proposals and accomplishments that are based on conservative thinking.

This was the secret behind Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s persuasiveness. They were able to explain conservative ideas in terms that non-conservatives could understand. Think about it this way: if somebody extolled an idea by saying that it is good socialist idea, would it win you over?

24-Being a consistent conservative will help you more than pandering to nuts on the Right. If you can't tell the difference between the two, don't run.

Championing an issue at a time when it is unpopular pays huge dividends later on. Not only will the issue’s supporters be eternally grateful, but everybody else sees that you have the stones to stand up for what you believe in.

18-Handwrite the parts of your platform you want voters to remember on a 3x5 index card. If it doesn't fit, your message is too complicated. If you can't think of what to start with, don't run.

26-Principles inspire; overly complex, specific plans are a pinata that can get picked to death. If you're tied down defending Point 7 of a 52 point plan that will never survive contact with the Congress anyway you lose. Complex plans need to be able to be boiled down to the principles and incentives they will operate on. The boiling is the key part.

A simple message isn’t a dumbed down message. Elucidating and defending basic principles is much more intellectually challenging than reciting a laundry list of policy proscriptions. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher could do the former. Mitt Romney couldn’t, so he was dependent on the latter.

31-When in doubt, go on the attack against the Democratic frontrunner rather than your primary opponents. Never forget that you are auditioning to run the general election against the Democrat, not just trying to be the least-bad Republican.

32-Attacking your opponents from the left, or using left-wing language, is a mistake no matter how tempting the opportunity. It makes Republican voters associate you with people they don't like. This is how both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry ended up fumbling the Bain Capital attack.

In Canada, this is a mistake that Red Tories like to make. And they wonder why their base hates them. 

33-Be prepared to defend every attack you make, no matter where your campaign made it. Nobody likes a rabbit puncher. Tim Pawlenty's attack on Romneycare dissolved the instant he refused to repeat it to Romney's face, and so did his campaign.

As Machiavelli advised, half a heart digs the grave deeper; as Napoleon advised, if you are going to take Vienna, then take Vienna; if you are going to hit, you must smash. 

35-If a debate or interview question is biased or ridiculous, point that out. Voters want to know you can smell a trap. This worked for Newt Gingrich every single time he did it. It worked when George H.W. Bush did it to Dan Rather. It will work for you.

So true. Hagiographic accounts of journalism by journalists aside, people really don’t like newspeople. They are about as popular as used car salesmen, lawyers and politicians. There is nothing to be lost by using unlikable people as foils, particularly if they are going to be against you anyway. 

40-Never whine about negative campaigning. If it's false, fight back; if not, just keep telling your own story. Candidates who are complaining about negative campaigning smell like losing. 

Leaders do not whine; they overcome; they dominate.

More rules later.

Obama and Putin: "the best photoshop ever"

Via twitter (any comment would be superfluous):

73 Rules For Running For President As A Republican

The blogger, Baseball Crank, has a great set of rules that a Republican presidential candidate should follow. While they are specific to American politics, most are applicable to the Canadian system of government as well, and conservatives everywhere would do well to heed them:

1-Run because you think your ideas are right and you believe you would be the best president. Don't stay out because your chances are slim, and don't get in because someone else wants you to. Candidates who don't have a good reason for running or don't want to be there are a fraud on their supporters. 

You must believe in something greater than yourself.

2-Ask yourself what you're willing to sacrifice or compromise on to win. If there's nothing important you'd sacrifice, don't run; you will lose. If there's nothing important you wouldn't, don't run; you deserve to lose.

Nicely put. We can’t afford spineless ditherers, and we can’t afford soul-less sociopaths either (I’m thinking of you Hillary).

6-Winning is what counts. Your primary and general election opponents will go negative, play wedge issues that work for them, and raise money wherever it can be found. If you aren't willing to do all three enthusiastically, you're going to be a high minded loser. Nobody who listens to the campaign-trail scolds wins. In the general election, if you don't convey to voters that you believe in your heart that your opponent is a dangerously misguided choice, you will lose.

Of late, many National Post columnists have been the ‘campaign scolds’ that Baseball Crank warns about here. I hope (and suspect) Prime Minister Stephen Harper knows better than to follow their bad advice. 

7-Pick your battles, or they will be picked for you. You can choose a few unpopular stances on principle, but even the most principled candidates need to spend most of their time holding defensible ground. If you have positions you can't explain or defend without shooting yourself in the foot, drop them.

16-If you never give the media new things to talk about, they'll talk about things you don't like.

This is a popular mistake made by Red Tories. They think that they can skate through a campaign without controversy. You can’t; nobody can. Campaigns are, by their very nature, controversial. Duh! But you do have the option to choose your controversy.

10-You will be called a racist, regardless of your actual life history, behavior, beliefs or platform. Any effort to deny that you're a racist will be taken as proof that you are one. Accept it as the price of admission.

With all that has gone on before, it constantly amazes me how many conservatives think that they can somehow avoid being called a racist. Of course every conservative will be called a racist, but those conservatives will be blindsided when it happens.

14-Run as who you are, not who you think the voters want. There's no substitute for authenticity.

This is the secret behind the popularity of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, former Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman and current Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. The eccentricities inherent in their personas are such that nobody could believe that it is some elaborate ad firm construct. They have a genuineness that pays them huge dividends.

15-Each morning, before you read the polls or the newspapers, ask yourself what you want to talk about today. Talk about that.

For the longest time, I didn’t understand why they put so much emphasis on message discipline in campaign school. But then I saw Rob Ford’s 2010 successful mayoral campaign, where he never deviated from his core messages - “respect the taxpayers” and “stop the gravy train” – no matter what Toronto’s media elites threw at him (and they threw everything at him). As a result, his message permeated every aspect of Toronto’s social life. What was the core message of his main opponent (and media darling), George Smitherman? I honestly can’t recall.

17-Never assume the voters are stupid or foolish, but also don't assume they are well-informed. Talk to them the way you'd explain something to your boss for the first time.

Good analogy. When Mitt Romney made his 47% statement, it was so damaging mainly because voters saw him as looking down on them. 

19-Voters may be motivated by hope, fear, resentment, greed, altriusm or any number of other emotions, but they want to believe they are voting for something, not against someone. Give them some positive cause to rally around beyond defeating the other guy.

This was the principal mistake made by former Ontario Progressive Conservative leaders Ernie Eves and John Tory. It seems counterintuitive, but running a negative campaign is much easier than running a positive one, in spite of the fact that everybody says they favour the latter. The thing is, a positive message provides a target for the other guy’s campaign, which is why Red Tory squishes end up going hard negative. 

I will feature some more cool rules later, so stay tuned.

David Horowitz: “Fight Fire With Fire”

Some good political advice from former radical – turned conservative, David Horowitz, that echoes many of the themes that I have been pushing on these pages:

“The second thing we have learned [from Obama’s presidency] is something that everyone knows but no one wants to admit: well-designed character attacks can have a crucial impact on electoral outcomes; well-designed character attacks overpower well-crafted messages.”

“In the last election, Romney had a good message and an obvious one… .”

“But a critical majority of the voting public never heard Romney’s message. The reason? A $200 million smear campaign successfully portrayed him as a heartless job destroyer, a mouthpiece for the selfish rich, someone whose words you can’t trust.”

As I have always repeated, successful political campaigns successfully employ negative attacks.

“What was the answer of Obama’s opponents to this killer attack? They didn’t have one. There was no $200 million campaign dedicated to destroying Obama’s credibility and undermining his message. Obama’s opponents didn’t have a message discrediting his character and neutralizing his attacks.”

Yup. Another RINO loser more interested in winning the Miss Congeniality award than the election.

“How is it possible that his opponents have not buried him under his own disasters? How did two successive presidential candidates, McCain and Romney, characterize this selfish, malicious leader — selling hope while delivering misery — as a “good man,” and someone who only lacked experience for the job? How about a moral conscience?”

See what I mean.

“The answer is obvious to everyone but no one will say it out loud.

No one will confront Obama the way he deserves to be confronted because he is black. … It is because Obama is a minority that no one will hold him to a common standard; or confront him with what he has actually done. Any political consultant will tell you that you can’t. This is how race conscious and race-prejudiced our country has become.”

This I don’t blame Romney for. Americans are simply not rational about black-white racial differences. Of course, Obama is termed out so this can’t be used as an excuse any more. There will be no more ‘first black presidents’.

“Their campaign narrative goes like this: We are the defenders of the underdog, and the champions of equality and fairness. If you attack us you attack minorities, women, children, and the poor. If you oppose us you are racists;”

I was at a Conservative Party of Canada policy meeting a decade ago, where everybody was discussing how to modify policies so that we don’t get charged with racism. At some point in these deliberations, I forcefully piped up and told everybody present that it doesn’t matter if we move so far left there isn’t any daylight between ourselves and Leon Trotsky any more, we will still be called racists. Why? Because calling us racists is a tactic that works. Accept the fact that we will be called racists. Embrace the suck.

And have a plan to deal with the slander when it comes.

“So here’s the strategy, remembering that the best defense is a good offense: Attack the Democrat socialists for their wars against minorities and the poor. Expose their empty promises and question their character and undermine their message by portraying them as hypocrites who cannot be trusted. In attacking them as enemies of minorities and the poor we show that we care what happens to minorities and the poor. We put them on the defensive, and we neutralize their malicious and unfair attacks.” 

“Conservatives often fail to appreciate the cynical basis of the attacks on them. Conservatives are earnest – too earnest. They aim their messages at the head instead of the heart. They appeal to reason instead of the emotions. That’s why they lose.” 

The Romney campaign saw policy as a series of bullet-points on a power-point graph. The Obama campaign grasped the moral element of the debate. For instance, while I don’t agree with much of Ayn Rand’s teachings, her Objectivist followers are right to emphasize the moral element in capitalism. You want the youth vote? You get them by appealing to their idealism.

 “It’s not rocket science. You can counter their attacks by turning their guns around. You can neutralize them by fighting fire with fire.”

Which was pretty much my advice 10 years ago. You don’t win by apologizing or denying. It’s too defensive. You win by returning fire.

“Finally, I don’t want to leave you with the idea that campaigns are won on negatives alone. The negatives I have proposed are designed to blunt the opposition attacks and put them on the defensive. But people need hope, and are looking for change. These are basic elements of any campaign message. In crafting the message the positive elements should be designed so that they also dramatize the negative: how the opposition hurts minorities, working Americans and the poor. In opposing parties that oppress these underdog classes we demonstrate that we care about what happens to them. It’s a simple equation. But our side doesn’t get it yet.”

Every good campaign is a harmonious mix of positive and negative messages. Unfortunately, conservatives rely on ad people not ideologues to craft their message. A winning message cannot be crafted without understanding the underlying arguments and social dynamics of the issues. Ideologues get that. PR types have the hubris to think they can sell politicians like toothpaste.

“ Even if this particular campaign doesn’t win the first or second time around it will eventually change the perceptions of everyone in politics.” 

Perseverance is an important trait in politics. If you are not consistent you will not be believed, and you will not outlast your enemy. This was one of the secrets of Canadian gun owners. Come rain or shine, we were out there making the argument for gun rights. As a result, we were able to triumph in the end in spite of the fact that when we began, we had no allies in the political world or the media. This is a lesson Red Tories and RINO losers refuse to learn. They pick issues out of the air with focus groups and polling data and wonder why everybody thinks they are phonies.

But read the entire article. 

Hurricane Sandy and President Obama: No, Sasha, Obama’s re-election wasn’t inevitable

At this year’s Manning Networking Conference I found myself having lunch at the same table as Sasha Issenberg, the author of the Victory Lab, a book that chronicles some of the awesome, new, cutting-edge, Big Data electioneering techniques the Obama campaign employed. He had just given an interesting presentation on this subject, which inspired me to buy his book (though I confess I haven’t read it yet, though I plan to).

I pointed out to him that while everything he said might be true, President Obama only won because of Hurricane Sandy. By hitting landfall a week before the election, this natural disaster banished Mitt Romney from the headlines in that critical last week of campaigning while it basked Obama in a presidential glow thanks to the fawning press coverage he received. In contrast to the treatment received by President Bush– who was immediately lambasted as soon as Katrina made landfall - the press praised President Obama’s handling of Sandy, in spite of the many disaster relief screw-ups (that were buried on the back pages and only highlighted in the conservative blogosphere).

As evidence, I pointed out that the same polls that correctly predicted Obama’s victory in the immediate days prior to election day, showed Romney leading, prior to Sandy’s landfall. This could be seen on Real Clear Politics’ (RCP) presidential election polling graph. Issenberg looked at me blankly and said he was not aware of such numbers.

I thought to myself: could I have imagined the whole thing? I mean, a data whiz and politics wonk like Issenberg surely couldn’t have missed numbers like that. Well, I finally got around to checking out the RCP archives and it turned out I was right. The politics geek got it wrong. Here is a screencap of the RCP polling graph for the final week and a half of the election (Sunday, Oct 21 to Tuesday, Nov 6):

 

 

It shows Romney clearly ahead of Obama from Oct 22 to Oct 30 in the public opinion polls making up RCP’s daily average. He wasn’t ahead by much (less than a percent), but this difference had persisted for over a week.

According to the Wikipedia page for Sandy:

“New York City began taking precautions on Oct 26. Governor Cuomo ordered the closure of MTA and its subway on October 28. … Train service and stations as well as the Port Authority Bus Terminal were shut down in the early morning hours of October 29… . On October 29, Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered public schools closed. … Additionally, 200 National Guard troops were deployed in the city. Additionally, one of NYU Langone Medical Center's backup generators failed on October 29, prompting the evacuation of hundreds of patients, including those from the hospital's various intensive care units. U.S. stock trading was suspended for October 29–30.”

Meanwhile in New Jersey:

“Preparations began on October 26, when officials in Cape May County advised residents on barrier islands to evacuate… . Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie ordered all residents of barrier islands from Sandy Hook to Cape May to evacuate and closed Atlantic City casinos. Tolls were suspended on the northbound Garden State Parkway and the westbound Atlantic City Expressway starting at 6 a.m. on October 28. President Obama signed an emergency declaration for New Jersey. … Most schools, colleges and universities were closed October 29 while at least 509 out of 580 school districts were closed October 30.”

So it sounds like the biggest impact from Sandy in New York and New Jersey was felt between Oct 28 and Oct 30. Oct 30 was the last day Romney was ahead of Obama. Below is a screencap of RCP’s graph of Obama’s job approval polls for the same time period. Notice that the President’s job approval numbers increased from a low of 48.3% on Oct 27 to 49.8% on Oct 30, where they roughly stayed until the election. Prior to Oct 27, Obama’s job approval numbers had been falling.

From Oct 31 to Nov 3 there were hardly any election polls because of the storm, so the Romney vs. Obama graph hardly budges. Fresh polls started coming in on Nov 3 and showed Obama pulling away. The fact that both sides gained supporters was likely due to Low Information Voters making up their minds at the last minute. The difference between the final polls and the election results was likely because of the same trend continuing for another day.

Old political operators like Dick Morris like to point out that the undecideds almost always break against the incumbent. With high unemployment, a bad economy and Obamacare hanging around the President’s neck like an anvil, one would have thought this rule of thumb would have been especially applicable on Nov 6, 2012. But it wasn’t. The undecideds broke for Obama. Was the press’s hagiographic treatment of Obama’s performance during Hurricane Sandy a cause?

Did the virtual banishment of presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, from the headlines in the last full week of the campaign play a role in his defeat?

And might Mitt Romney be president today if Hurricane Sandy had decided to track up the mid-Atlantic instead?

Of Harper, Syria and Keystone XL

Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper politely declined the military participation of Canada’s military in President Obama’s much-talked about strike on Syria, while affirming the moral righteousness of the cause of punishing Assad for his use of chemical weapons.

Since Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Harper has pursued a cautious diplomacy with the man he, no doubt, is ideologically at odds with. Like Admiral Yamamoto, he doesn’t want to waken a sleeping giant. The problem is, aside from avoiding unpleasant blow-ups, Stephen Harper has very little positive to show for his strategy. This has become increasingly clear as Obama continues to obstruct the Keystone XL pipeline.

Preventing its construction is a shot across the bow. Once it became clear that the President isn’t going to let this pipeline be built, our prime minister lost any reason to be nice to the snoozing giant. Perhaps an embarrassing foreign policy flare-up with America’s closest ally would be just the thing to give Obama an attitude adjustment. 

So in the spirit of kicking a man when he is down (now that Obama is flailing away on his self-inflicted diplomatic debacle), I think Harper should have responded much less politely over Syria: until the U.S. approves Keystone XL, don’t expect Canadian cooperation on Syria – or anything else.