To go negative or not to go negative...

...that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the outrageous Conservative slings and arrows...ok, that’s enough. Yesterday I made the case for a positive response to the Conservative attack ads. Over at Daily Canuck though, former Trudeau staffer Tom Axworthy makes the case for going negative:

The Liberals should cut their own series of ads, linking Harper’s Republican Lite game plan to the negative politics of disunity that so disfigure the electoral process in the United States. Dion cannot allow an impression to grow that he is a scholarly and honourable man not quite up to the cut and thrust of modern politics… The Conservatives have begun the 2007 campaign by going negative. The Liberal Party must respond immediately and in kind.

I agree with Tom’s sentiment, but I disagree with his strategy.

First of all, these ads are over the top, personal, and coming outside of an election they reek of desperation. Refute the factual inaccuracies in the ads, yes, defend our record and, as I discussed yesterday, pivot to our message. Talk about how the new-found Conservative love for the environment rings hollow. We saw that line in question period Monday. We can do that with our earned media and through other channels though, we don’t need to do it through an ad buy.

Also, hammering the “US-style attack ads” angle is unnecessary, and inflammatory. People will make that link on their own, us hitting them over the head with it only lets the Cons come back at us with the Libs are anti-American card. And do we have money for ads at the moment anyway? We don’t have a CPC-sized warchest. They’ve got more money that they can spend, we very much don’t. Every dollar we spend now is one less we can spend during the campaign.

I’m not saying the time won’t come to go negative; such ads do very much have their place in the electoral process. But that time is not now and indeed, right now I think we’re better served by a high road approach. Defend and correct, yes, throw mud back, no.

Definitions

Other then advocating going negative Tom does also make a rather good point. We need to work harder at defining Stephane Dion. As Tom says he’s been doing the right things to bring the party together internally, and that’s important, but it’s been inside the Queensway type stuff:

Dion has to get out of the Ottawa bubble and show dramatically that he intends to reach out to women, the young, and others usually ignored by the Ottawa establishment. He has to insist that Elizabeth May and the Green Party be invited to the Leaders’ Debates. He has to combine issues, showing, for example, that a healthy environment is a pre-condition to health in our bodies, so that the Liberal Party gains credibility on the two top-of-the-line issues of concern to most Canadians.

I agree. He needs to start speaking to the general public, to the people. And not through the soundbite cut and thrust of question period, that’s not going to resonate with Canadians. He needs to get out and give speeches, talking about issues and vision. Tour the country and meet with Canadians, in small and large groups. Sit down and talk with local community newspapers, radio and television stations. Take his message to the people.

Going negative right now though would be a mistake. Now is not the time. We can be firm without resorting to these sorts of attacks. We’ve been going negative for at least the last three years. Let’s give the other way a try for a bit, shall we?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers