Teodora ([info]teodora) wrote,
@ 2004-05-26 22:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Reality Check: New Liberal ads
Visual: A softly lit, close-up of Liberal Leader Paul Martin's face slowly comes into focus.

Paul Martin: "Look, you can have a country like Canada or you can have a country like the U.S."

A gentle musical score accompanies.

Visual : The camera switches to a wider angle view of Martin seated in a comfortable chair, his arm resting on a stack of discarded Red Books.

Martin speaks directly to camera: "But you can't have a country like Canada with the taxation levels of the U.S. without risking the very social programs that make this country great . . . God knows I've tried!"

Visual: Close-up of Martin in profile.

Martin continues: "In our Canada , we look after our friends. Billions of dollars to tax cuts instead of health and education. An average corporate tax rate 11 per cent lower than the US . A health care system teetering on the brink, begging to be corporatized. A Prairie climate that's dryer than a Hy's martini. Advertising contracts let with no results. That's the Canada we choose. We hope that's the Canada you'll choose, too."

Audio: A woman's voice says, "This message was brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada. Delivering precisely the things you voted against, since 1993."

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]arono
2004-05-27 05:45 am UTC (link)
Wow - I just read that on the NDP site like 10 minutes ago. :)

While I understand that points of comparison between parties and platforms are necessary, I find the NDP's constant mocking of the Liberals a little overboard. It strikes me as a bit 'schoolyard', and I hope it's not turning too many people off. I'd rather see more positive campaigning based on the excellent principles and ideas of the party, and fewer cheap shots and mudslinging. Don't get me wrong, they should definitely be pointing out the problems and weak spots of the other platforms, all in the spirit of debate. But this Liberal "ad" for example... don't you find it somewhat juvenile? That's not the image of my party I want people to have.

But anyway... GO NDP!!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]argilo
2004-05-27 06:51 am UTC (link)
Outside their website, the NDP seems to have switched to a mostly positive campaign style. Take a look at their latest TV ad, for example. I think Jack has realized that he might have to work with Paul in the event of a minority government, and so he shouldn't spend all his time attacking him. :-)

As for negative campaigning, I'm not sure how much truth there is to it, but I've heard the argument from some people who've been in the game for a while that positive campaigning "just doesn't work". Perhaps people need a good reason not to vote for the Liberals before they'll think about another party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]teodora
2004-05-27 08:07 pm UTC (link)
:-) Indeed. Canadian voters are digital: they have only two states-on (Liberal) and off (Conservative).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]teodora
2004-05-27 08:00 pm UTC (link)
I don't find this "schoolyard". I find it quite funny actually. I don't think that something is either mudslinging or a cheap shot when it is actually the TRUTH. But we are such a civil nation, we can't stand the ugly truth, we prefer civil lies.
Yes, we are all intelligent civilized people and we can't stand mudslinging and cheap shots. Yet, the ratings of shows like Jerry Springer's, The Bachelor/ette, and Survivour are going through the roof. This doesn't add up.
On top of that, after many polite campaigns, the NDP was reduced to an unofficial party in Ontario and to one-seat-unofficial party at the federal level. Obviously being too polite is a disadvantage on the political scene.
Tell me, Aaron, what kind of an image do you want your party to have?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]arono
2004-05-28 04:56 am UTC (link)
As I said, I'm all for presenting the "truth", but there are lots of ways of doing this, and there are many different interpretations of the truth. I do not prefer civil lies to ugly truth; that's not what I said at all.

True, the ad is funny, but I guess my idea of politics is something other than sitting around laughing at contructed absurdities about other parties. If you're wondering why your comparison between politics and reality television doesn't add up, I can give you a hint: One is about governing and the other is about entertainment. As entertaining as politics often is, I sincerely hope it never crosses the line into Jerry Springer territory!

I was unaware that the conclusion has been drawn that polite campaigns don't work. I find that very unfortunate. However, if the research is there to back up this claim, at least I can better understand what people are resorting to, even if I don't think it's approriate.

My bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. A Liberal might disagree, but for whatever reason, I feel the NDP should be above this. We don't need to stoop to that level. We have a solid position that should stand on its own two legs.

What kind of image do I want my party to have? I want a party about principles; a party about ideas. I want a party that actively pursues creative ways of getting noticed; a party that can do this without spending so much energy bashing other parties. Let's talk about our viewpoints, yes, in comparison to the other parties, but not exclusively from that angle. Don't we have our own position? One not relative to others? I hope so; otherwise, by definition, the NDP couldn't form the government, and couldn't even exist if the other parties somehow disappeared.

My vision for the website is a balance of helping Canadians understand in practical terms what a Martin government would mean (i.e. exposing the intentions behind the rhetoric), and showcasing what an NDP government would do to make things better. In the meantime, a funny parody ad like this one is more approriate among ourselves - just in case there are potential supporters who might be turned off by it (as I'm sure there are).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]teodora
2004-05-28 09:18 pm UTC (link)
Well, Aaron, I don't think you watch TV much :-) I've been watching 1-2 hours of election coverage on TV every day and unfortunately I haven't heard anything about real issues or ideas. It's all about who tripped, who had a slip of the tongue, who made an outrageous comment...that's all the media chooses to show the viewer. Did you see the headline in the Post yesterday? "All Four Leaders Have Blue Eyes" (or something of that sort). Some brilliant journalist determined that the probability of all four leaders having blue eyes given that about 20% of Canadians have blue eyes is less than 1 in 1000. First of all, this isn't true and secondly, why would this be in the paper? On page 1 on top of that. This is an election not a beauty pageant. But the media claims that they deliver what the public wants.
In any event, Alexa McDonough is (in my opinion) one of the nicest, most socially responsible, and most polite people I know of. In all six weeks of the 2000 election, I saw her twice on TV (30 seconds or so each time). She never said anything controversial, never accused anyone of anything. The result was that she almost brought the party to extinction. The party was never in the news and most people didn't even know it existed or if they did, they had no idea what it stood for. The unfortunate truth is that this is not some idealistic world full of professors. A large chunk of the electorate doesn't even know what politics is all about. 75% of young people (18-29) don't vote because "they can't relate to a bunch of middle aged men" and because politics "has no effect on their lives". The only way to get them to pay attention is to act like a clown. Even if that's not the case, the media will only show you when you act like a clown. They seem to be convinced that the only way to sell newspapers or TV is to have Jerry Springer type of sensations.
By the way, all parties are stepping up the mudslinging. Since they have undoubtedly studied the voter market very, very carefully over the last century, I trust them to know what works and what doesn't. If being reasonable and debating politely the issues would get them elected, then I believe that that's what they would do. The fact that they universally resort to mudslinging suggests to me that they believe that it works better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…