How the left fights the right
The Washington Times (Washington, DC)
Mon Jan 7 2013
Page: B4
Section: COMMENTARY; BOOK REVIEW
Byline: Michael Taube

When it comes to modern politics, the left and right know less about each other now than ever before. That’s a huge tactical error. As Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War,” “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.“

Hence, it’s important to learn how the members of an opposing political ideology think, act and strategize. It will provide some insight in advising candidates, conducting efficient campaigns – and, with hard work and good fortune, winning elections. It will also ensure that good electoral strategies and solid ground games are in place to combat different political parties and candidates.

That’s why Warren Kinsella’s book, “Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,” is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.

Mr. Kinsella is a liberal political consultant, political pundit, author and Toronto Sun columnist based in Canada. He’s well known in my country, but isn’t a household name in the United States. His political consulting firm, Daisy Group, probably doesn’t ring a bell with most strategists. So, what does he add to the debate? Plenty. Mr. Kinsella may be a Canadian, but his political style is perfectly suited to the rough-and-tumble world of U.S. politics. He’s an intelligent and talented individual with a vast understanding of Canadian and American politics. He believes in fighting his opponents tooth and nail, and has no fear to go for the jugular. He recognizes that the political arena can either be a genteel environment, or resemble something more akin to a blood sport. He will do what he has to do to achieve victory.

Full disclosure: I’ve known Mr. Kinsella for years, and we get along very well. Our association has puzzled more than a few observers, because we think so differently on so many issues. That’s true: I’m right, and he’s wrong – rather, left. Like many other pundits and columnists, we share a mutual interest in areas like politics, history, strategy and communications. Hence, we’ve always been able to find things to talk about rather than wasting time to find things to fight over.

When it comes to conservatives, there’s no question Mr. Kinsella has strong opinions about his rivals. He’s had conservative friends, colleagues, employees – and even married one. He feels conservatives are “fine, as dinner companions or even life companions,” and doesn’t believe they are all “evil,” but they “cannot be trusted with power.” He even vigorously points out significant differences between conservatives and liberals on issues like abortion, the economy, education, gun control, global warming and the war on terror. All of these political descriptions are fine in love, war and politics. It’s part of the way information and misinformation are funneled to the general public.

Alas, Mr. Kinsella often falls into the trap of believing myths about conservatism’s true meaning – and has acquired a skewed vision. For instance, he feels conservatives are good at “masking their intentions … it’s hard to pin them down; it’s hard to see who they truly are.” He subscribes to George Lakoff’s controversial thesis in “The Political Mind“: “In conservative thought, people are born bad – greedy and unscrupulous. To maximize their self-interest, they need to learn discipline, to follow the rules and obey laws. [The system] rewards those who acquire such discipline and punishes those who do not.” While President Obama “may call himself a Democrat,” he has “shown the instincts of a Republican, a conservative.”

Yet the author has learned lessons from conservatives, including Canada’s Conservative government. He respects their success in winning over the electorate “by being smart,” even if the results drive him nuts. In Mr. Kinsella’s view, “conservatives have quite literally burglarized the liberal homestead, and made off with populist values and symbol-laden language. Because, make no mistake: While liberals and progressives slept, conservatives did indeed break in and swipe the recipe to the political secret sauce.”

Hence, Mr. Kinsella wants to “Fight the Right” and bring progressives back to their former glory. He speaks fondly of the days of former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President Bill Clinton, when progressives ruled the roost. He examines successful strategies run by a diverse group of conservatives, including Canadian political consultant Patrick Muttart and U.S. pollster Frank Luntz. He details personal conversations with James Carville, Mike McCurry and even President Gerald Ford to analyze the left-right divide. He has crafted a strategy to revitalize the left.

Will it work? That remains to be seen. However, if Mr. Kinsella’s call to arms in “Fight the Right” succeeds, there will once again be a need to fight the left for the hearts and minds of voters.

Michael Taube is a former speechwriter for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and a columnist with The Washington Times.

+++++

FIGHT THE RIGHT: A MANUAL FOR SURVIVING THE COMING CONSERVATIVE APOCALYPSEBy Warren KinsellaRandom House Canada, $22.95, 277 pages

 

 

Comments (10)

 

You might call it the Hamlet Principle.

You know, from William Shakespeare’s play of that name.  Act 3, scene 2, wherein Hamlet’s mother famously observes that another character “doth protest too much, methinks.”

Not “protest” in the modern context, although that sort of protest is relevant here, too.  No, in the Shakespearean era, “protest” meant as an affirmation, or an avowal.

Thus, the Hamlet Principle can be seen at work in a decidedly modern psychodrama, between Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, on the one side, and all of Canadian conservatism, on the other.  Chief Spence is on a hunger strike, protesting the way in which the Conservative government treats First Nations.

And Conservatives, meanwhile, can lately be observed claiming – over and over and over – that Chief Spence is a liar and a fraud and a criminal, and even that she isn’t really on a hunger strike at all.  This is where the “they doth protest too much” part comes in.

Because, the more that Conservatives bray and screech that they don’t care about Chief Spence’s truly brilliant campaign, the more Canadians suspect that they do.  The more that these Cons insult her – calling her every name they can conjure up, including “c**t” on a Sun News web page – the more that they look, well, scared.

Yes, scared.  With every hateful, spit-flecked epithet they lob at her – with the cacophony of conservative columnists, and the cyber-sewer of commenters who follow them – Conservatives sound undeniably worried about what Chief Spence is achieving.

Because, make no mistake, she is achieving plenty.  She is attracting attention to her cause.  Famous people are trekking to her tiny tent, located on a miss-it-if-you-blink bit of rock between Ottawa and Hull. International media are writing about her, and the grassroots Idle No More movement. Canadians are paying attention.

She is not doing any of this with showy Greenpeace-style media stunts, or demonstrations that massively inconvenience average citizens.  She is not committing any acts of terror.  She is simply saying she will not eat until she gets to meet with the Prime Minister.  That’s it.

If you pay any attention to conservatives, however, you would think Chief Spence is worse than Hitler, and that her hunger strike is a declaration of war.  Against her, the full force of the Conservative government’s army of propagandists have been deployed.  She has been called some of the most disgusting things imaginable, but she has not responded in kind.  Instead, she has been almost Ghandi-like in her dignity.

If Chief Spence is truly a threat – and, with her weakened body, and her failing voice, it is hard to see how she could threaten anyone – then Conservatives have pursued a genuinely idiotic strategy against her.  Instead of making her infamous, they have made her famous.

Instead of ignoring her, they have revealed themselves to be obsessed by her.  Instead of simply meeting with her, and making it a one-day story, their pig-headed stubbornness has made Chief Spence a folk hero who will be remembered for years to come.

Like I say, it’s the Hamlet Principle.  When they doth protest too much, you can always be reasonably assured that they’re a bunch of goddamned liars.

 

Comments (165)

The solution.

Comments (11)

Here.  No apology to the paper’s readership, as predicted.

(Reminds me of a big error the Spec’s owner, the Star, made but refused to apologize for. See number five.)

Comments (0)

Now they are smearing her with financial audits they haven’t actually released. From the same fiscally-incompetent crew who shit the fiscal bed on the fighter jets. Amazing.

Anyway, this latest stunt fits the pattern. Therefore, tomorrow’s column isn’t about Chief Spence and the Cons – it’s about how the Cons’ pig-headedness has turned Chief Spence into a folk hero.

Comments (51)

Son One has suggested that I kill him instead of making him go back.

“That sounds a bit extreme,” I suggested. “Besides, you only have another decade or so of school to go. What could be wrong with that?”

I can now hear him upstairs, actually moaning.

Comments (3)

As a political contrasts go, it was stark.

It came in the same week, too. In the very same week Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence was continuing a hunger strike, vainly seeking a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss the Third World living conditions of Canada’s First Nations, we learned his most senior minister — Jim Flaherty — had expensed makeup.

That’s right, makeup. Documents tabled in the House of Commons revealed Canada’s finance minister, who makes about a quarter of a million a year, charged taxpayers nearly $130 to pay for makeup. For him. To be precise, Flaherty expensed $119.15 on “cosmetics” and $9.99 for “beauty supplies.”

He bought Cover Girl loose powder, Maybelline loose powder, Maybelline concealer, Maybelline “Min Blush,” Maybelline LMU, Smashbox concealer, cosmetic wedges, a powder brush, a foundation brush and “SBM Top Zip Shave.”

The purchases were approved by Flaherty’s parliamentary secretary, Shelly Glover, in 2008 and only came to light in an iPolitics report last week on New Year’s Eve.

The cosmetics were purchased “to prepare the Minister of Finance for the numerous television interviews conducted with media outlets from across Canada,” Flaherty’s underlings wrote, in a document that sought to justify the expense.

When a Liberal MP asked about other Conservative ministers charging taxpayers for makeup, Harper’s bureaucrats — the Privy Council Office — demurred. “(The Privy Council Office) has no information in response to the question,” they said,

Of course they don’t. Why would they? This, after all, is the Tough Guy Conservative regime of Messrs. Harper and Flaherty — all about getting “tough” on crime, and getting “tough” on terrorism, and making “tough decisions.”

Not a very tough guy, though, is it? You know, swanning around Ottawa, wearing Maybelline and Cover Girl face paint. Kind of soft, isn’t it Jim? Kind of flaccid, wouldn’t you say, to charge taxpayers for your makeup?

This is one of those stories some folks in Ottawa think isn’t one. Like Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice, for example. Outside Parliament Hill, that one met with more than a few shrugs at the start. But it became a pretty big story, didn’t it? Ended Oda’s political career, didn’t it? It did, it did.

Now, we shouldn’t expect Flaherty’s boss to say much, if anything, about this latest steaming pile to emanate from Conservative Ottawa. Harper, after all, has been using a makeup artist for years — her name is Michelle Muntean, we know that much — but he refuses to tell us how much it costs. That is, how much it costs us, the taxpayers, with whom Conservatives used to claim to be so preoccupied.

Again, not very “tough.” It’s sort of girlish, isn’t it boys? Perhaps you should give your crotches a quiet pat or two, to reassure yourselves that you’re still, you know, all there.

It is unknown what Chief Spence thinks about this insanity. In the past two weeks, she has indicated she is prepared to starve herself to secure a meeting with Harper.

Her hunger strike, bearing the name Idle No More, has attracted the attention of media from around the world. And, in one much-seen moment, an Idle No More sign even appeared in the middle of CNN’s New Year’s Eve broadcast.

If Spence is disgusted by the likes of Harper and Flaherty, nobody could really blame her. Here she is, having to starve herself to get a meeting with Harper, but he still won’t. All around the time we are finding out that Jim Flaherty thinks it’s OK to charge taxpayers for his Cover Girl.

Get that? They’ll expense makeup. But they won’t make time to meet Spence.

There are days a lot of us actually, truly hate this “government.”

This is one of those days.

Comments (71)

Here.

Questions and answers:

Why did the elusive Chris Mazza “break his silence”? Because someone suspects they are about to hear from the OPP, and because they want to lay some PR track before that happens. That’s why.

Why did the Globe give Mazza such an uncritical platform? To piss off the Star and Kevin Donovan, who arrogantly think that they alone are responsible for exposing all wrongdoing in the world, and who also believe the sun of journalistic goodness solely shines out their asses. That’s why.

Why should you care? You shouldn’t. It’s PR bullshit, from start to finish. This guy was a creep – and a Conservative creep, to boot – and he richly deserves the misery that has been his life in the past year. Evidence of his creepiness? Continual use of that poor kid’s death in virtually every public statement he has made. It’s a disgrace.

And so is Chris Mazza.

Comments (5)

…because, as Twain said, reports of our death have been an exaggeration.

Comments (12)

Check this out. Read it where this guy says I claimed my web site would become “dominant.”

Problem: I didn’t say that. I was linking to the CBC’s web site, which has no paywall. Here’s the original posting.

(I love his snotty use of “sic,” too. Nice fellow. UPDATE: he’s removed the “sic,” but he still hasn’t admitted his error.)

Who made this error, which is a pretty big one? The Editor-in-Chief of the Hamilton Spectator, that’s who. The entirety of his column is defeated by his rookie error, in fact.

I therefore amend my original thesis: it isn’t just paywalls that will kill off many newspapers.

Sloppiness will, as well.

Oh, and Mr. Editor-in-Chief guy? It’s a web site, not a “blog.”

You got that wrong, too.

(Post script: I’ve emailed him seeking a correction. Anyone think it’ll never happen? That, too, is a trait of most newspapers.)

UPDATED AGAIN: A generous apology, accepted:

Correction in progress. Forgive me. Also, “sic” was inserted by a copy editor and removed when I saw it. Unfortunately, I did not understand my error until I saw your post now.

Paul Berton
Editor in Chief
The Hamilton Spectator / thespec.com
905.526.3482
Pberton@thespec.com

Comments (11)