The Dunning of Dinning

I find the dirty tricks and misinformation campaigns the most difficult part of politics. Jim Dinning is taking the offence about some alleged misinformation about his intentions and “facts” about him that he says are false. The usual political consultant “wisdom” about such things is they ought not be repeated because doing so merely reinforces the original negative message and impressions.

The textbook example was the allegations about Richard Nixon being a “crook” and his numerous protestations to the contrary saying “I am not a crook” served only to add to the doubts in the public’s mind about his being fit to govern. In the end, with Watergate, he turned out to be a crook. The collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) ever since is for the candidate not to repeat the remarks or the allegations because it merely serve to reinforce the original negative impressions…but that is what Jim is doing here and the media, including this Blog, is potentially simply reinforcing the negative story.

It comes down to what messages stick with the busy disengaged or the only partially engaged public from such “news” and “allegations.” We seem to hook on to bad news and remember it – even if we only vaguely recall what it was about - but we do seem to "remember" that it was negative – and that is the problem.

The difficulty is how our minds work and the kind of “attention” we pay in our overly mediated world. When you are told “do not think of a white horse” what image comes into your mind? A white horse, of course! When that “message” gets repeated to us again and again, especially when we are not sufficiently engaged in the message or concerned much about its meaning, we get our original impressions reinforced. We seem to remember that the issue was negative more than we “hear” the correction or the rebuttal. By the candidate repeating the message in rebuttal or in a correction, the theory is the original negative message is what gets reinforced in the public mind and not the correction. That is why correction and apologies in the media are nice to have but almost totally ineffectual in changing the original incorrect perception as to the “facts.”

The same kind of thing happened in 1992 leadership race on the Betkowski and Klein campaigns. There were whispered allegations throughout the countryside that if Betkowski won she would be shutting down rural hospitals. It was widely promoted and vigorously denied but the damage was done. Rural Albertans started to fear what would happen to them if the province were run by, what some called, “that uppity educated city woman.” Ouch! Ironically that fear was not unfounded because that is exactly what Klein did do to many rural hospitals once he was in power.

There were many unsubstantiated claims by anonymous callers that Klein was guilty of spousal abuse. I know, I took many of the calls while working on the Betkowski campaign. None of these callers would give me their names, their lawyer’s name or would commit to swearing an affidavit to evidence their allegations. Each of them wanted me to be reassured however they were honest and forthcoming folks just trying to do the right thing. Such is the downside of politics. I know that Premier Klien is hurt by those allegations even today.

So in this context Jim Dinning is posting rebuttals and corrections about incorrect allegations on his website and the media are writing stories about the “facts” and his responses. I wonder if the times and people have changed since the days of Richard Nixon or is Dinning’s approach merely reinforcing the negative impressions and not effectively correcting the record.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Damned politics.

So You Think You Know Canada Eh!

Here is some Sunday night silliness for you amusement and perhaps chagrin...I suffered from both feelings after taking the quiz because my score was embarassingly low. I will not chastise any comments that are Ananymous regarding this post or the quiz - honestly... really...I mean that! Because I will not tell you my score - I can hardly complain if you tell me how you did and do not what your identity known.

Thanks to the Globe and Mail for this - it is almost enough to make up for my conspiracy theory when they published the Hancock Platform story in the rest of Canada but not in the Alberta edition.

Average Leaders Give Us Easy Answers - Great Leaders Invite Us to Consider Better Questions

Just looked at the GrassRootsAvenger blog comments on the Hancock policy platform. He/She bemoans the fact Hancock poses questions and presumably does not offer enough answers. Fair enough and to the Avengers credit, some comments are posted to some of the questions they have on the Hancock policy. I would like to respond from my perspective on the answers...and I will check with Dave Hancock to see if his positions are different and report back if necessary.

Expanding school breakfast and lunch programs wherever needed; Is this a role for the provincial government?

Yes! Children are the responsibility of parents first and then each and every Albertan, individually and collectively where needed. Where a child is not able to realize their potential or is in danger or is hungry - we as a society ought to be helping to fix the problem...short term and long term. Feeding children in need is a no-brainer! If kids are not ready to learn and grow into healthy, productive, confident and self-reliant citizens because they are hungry, or scared, in need or at risk for whatever reason...society needs to step up to the plate. That, in part, is why we have government!

Implementing strategy to create 60,000 new post-secondary learning spaces; And just how much is this going to cost?

Plenty and worth every dollar! Education is the key to a prosperous productive and cohesive society especially in the knowledge based, technologically driven globalized reality of today. To not maximize our greatest assets - our human capacity is not just short sighted...it is stupid! Besides this is already official GOA policy - but like so many such "decision" of recent - it is not being implemented. Investment - the long view and strategic planning is what this is all about. The Alberta Republicans seem to know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.

Discontinuing Alberta Health Care Premiums and offering tax incentives for healthy lifestyle choices; Like Dinning's proposed tax on junkfood?
Not really! Dinning's junkfood tax is not likely to change much of the behaviours of those who are being harmed by poor nutrition - the poor! His tax is actually going to penalize and hurt poorer people disproportionately because research shows they are more likely to buy cheap, convenient but unhealthy fast food. Hancock is suggesting an incentive system to reward positive changes in behaviours that will reduce demands on the health care system. Fresh carrots not stale sticks!

Instituting a province wide ban on smoking in all public places; What about personal freedom?
What about personal freedom -it is not absolute. It is proven that your second hand smoke puts my life in danger. Smoke on your own property and not where children are around either. Consider it your "personal property" right to kill yourself on your own property and on your own time. By the way I will be paying your health care costs - even heroic ineffective interventions to extend your life through technology with my tax dollars to keep you alive. I will also be paying for your cancer treatments all because you lack the personal responsibility to take care of yourself. Thx a bunch! What about my personal freedom to chose not to pay for your irresponsible behaviour? Why not take individual responsibility here. You smoke you pay your own health costs. That is some two tier medicine that I could "live" with but will gladly forfeit the tax savings for a universal system - even if smokers are abusing it.

Instituting a government-run liability program for the volunteer sector; Whoa! Doesn't this mean taking on some huge potential liability...Isn't this expanding the role of government further into the private realm?

Yes and yes! If we do not support volunteer organizations to ensure safety and security of the people they serve - often our most vulnerable citizens. We neet to protect the volunteers too from abuse, unfounded litigation or allegations. Otherwise they will disappear along with the entire not-for-profit sector. Then government will end up hiring staff to do the work - because the issues and problems will not go away. Government replacement programs will be much more expensive and less likely to get optimal results as well. The private sector insurers are boosting rates in the face of greater perceived risks because the volunteer sector cannot afford to screen volunteers now. We are seeing more claims so the solution is more and better screening, more training and a backstop on liability insurance. We do co-insurance for workers compensation - why not the not-for-profit and voluntary sector?

The responses from The Grassroots Avenger are classic old-style shallow short term and narrow fiscal conservative thinking about reducing taxes and government's role. To them it is all about the costs and rarely about the value of effective outcomes. PROGRESSIVE conservatives see both sides - value for tax money and a postive role for government to step in but only where individuals and markets can't do the job.

Politics and the 18-35 Age Group

Canada West Foundation is about to release a report on the political attitudes of western Canadians 18-35 year olds. The report surveyed 2000 people across the west and is being released on Thursday October 19.

I have had a chance to read an advance copy and can tell you it dispels some myths about youth voting. It also confirms some issues and values preference differences between this group and the dominant over 35 age sector.

One eye-popping finding is that Under 35s also do not relate to political parties or election campaigns. What would it take to get them to participate? We know people do not vote on issues as much as their sense of identity. After all politicians in power do an awful lot in "our names" justifing actions in term of what they believe their constituents are telling them.

I wonder if the 18-35 people do show up and participate in the PC leadership which candidate resonates with them the most? Would it be Norris the Young? Oberg the Maverick? Morton the Academic Theo-con? Dinning the Destined? Hancock the Progressive? Stelmach's Integrity? McPherson's Courage? Doerksen the Nondescript?

Here are some report highlights provided by the Canada West Foundation with the advanced copy I am sure I can share:

Identity: Contrary to stereotype, under 35s are more likely to describe themselves as centrists than as left-leaning.

National Unity: Under 35s are quite confident that Canada will remain united in 20 years, but register high levels of indifference toward Quebec separation.

Attitudes Toward Canadian Democracy: Under 35s report a moderate level of interest in politics. The vast majority feels an obligation to vote, and many see volunteering in their community as an obligation.

Under 35 Public Policy: While many “mainstream” policy issues (such as health care) are important to under 35s, they are also concerned about a number of issues that receive relatively less attention, including poverty, post-secondary education, and international issues. There are a number of important policy priority differences between under 35s and over 35s, particularly with respect to international issues.

A healthy vibrant democracy depends on citizen participation. It is not good that this segment of our society does not relate their citizenship in terms of political parties and election campaigns.

Not their fault - parties have to be more open and relevant and elections have to be more meaningful and less market positioning of the candidates as a mediocre yet acceptable product. No inspiring leadership to be found there.

This "Poll" Is Too Much Fun - and Dangerous!

I omitted in my haste this afternoon to detail some more glaring error in process and appraoch in this PGIB "poll." They took 3 weeks to get 600 replies but did not break them down to see if they reflected the demographic characteristics of the PC Party because the information emerging is that they used an internal list of PC Party members that was "at least one year old." Double Duh!

They took 50% of the input from South and Central Alberta and 50% split equaly between Edmonton and Calgary - ignoring the north entirely and totally unrelated to the true geographical distribution of the PC Party membership and based solely on their "old" list of PC Party members.

BUT without so much as offering a blush of embarrassment they make an unsubstantiated representation as to how they say PC Party members are thinking about voting for the leadership. That offers no evidence at all as to what the real PC Party current membership and pending new membership is thinking. The real question Albertans have to ask themselves about this PGIB "poll" is "What were they thinking?"

Polls can suffer from a serious lack of crediblity even when then are done by seasoned professionals. These PGIB "poll" sponsors are not professionals - they are rank amateurs and pranksters...perhaps with a potential to be big time political dirty tricksters. They have the profile don't you think?

As citizens we all need to keep our guards up aginst these kinds of tactics and their perpetrators .

Dr Morton's people are now seemingly to be slip slidin' away from this poll result and I would advise form any"endorsement" of the PGIB organzation and its leadership. Good idea to find some real distance from these guys Doctor Morton!