TriumphAnt

And here’s today’s carrier-pigeon borne message from the shellhole-pocked front that is the Canadian election campaign battlefield. CTV News offered this “instant debate reaction” following the English language leaders’ debate. Maybe someone else can figure out what it means, because I can’t:

(Based on a “wide cross-section of 2,107 Canadian voters”): “And here is what they said. On the overall question, who won this debate, 37 percent said Stephen Harper, 24 percent chose Paul Martin, 18 percent went with Jack Layton. Gilles Duceppe seven. On the question who offered the best performance in the debate? Once again Stephen Harper came out on top with 39 percent, next was Jack Layton with 22 percent, 20 percent said Gilles Duceppe, and last was Paul Martin with 16 percent. But when asked which leader would make the best Prime Minister, 38 percent chose Paul Martin, 36 percent Stephen Harper, 14 Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe had six.”

So Harper “won” the debate; Harper “offered the best performance” and yet the people who provided that assessment have also concluded that Martin would make the best Prime Minister. These “Canadian voters” remind me of the people who vote the Academy Award to one movie, and then vote “Best Director” to another, producing a phenomenon that Hollywood cynics call the “self-directed picture.”

Now I confess I didn’t watch the debate in either language, because part of my job involves assessing media and stakeholder reaction to the debates, so I pay more attention to what the analytical “talking heads” say after it’s over. But I am more and more convinced that the whole debate event offers absolutely nothing of benefit to the participants. The clips I did see were largely of one leader trying to make a point while the other three were trying to shout him down. The whole schtick can be summed up by this report of a brief exchange between a “frustrated” Paul Martin and a pit-bull like Jack Layton, who doggedly (oh ya, pun intended) hammered away at the Liberals for endorsing Canada’s participation in a North American missile defence shield: “At one point, Martin became frustrated at the persistent questioning on missile defence. ‘Did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?’ Martin snapped at Layton. ‘Oh that's very funny, Mr. Martin,’ Layton replied. ‘We're talking here about missiles that can threaten the safety of our world. I don't find it a laughing matter.’"

The fact – its funniness or lack thereof aside – is that each of these guys without exception has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by his respective handlers that they all come to the event with precisely zero spontaneity. And based on the clips I saw, the format encourages rather than discourages the shouting down of one’s opponents in the “debate”.

All of which leads me to conclude the Great Canadian Leaders’ Debate is important only to the media. Think about it. It usually comes at about the mid-point of a campaign. The media hype it endlessly; they speculate ad nauseam about how a “good debate” will help a leader; or a “bad debate” will toast his campaign. Afterwards, they analyse to death who “won”, who “lost” and produce reams of paper and hours of tape about the subject at exactly the time the public is getting loudly ill at the tsunami of election coverage that daily inundates us.

If I were king of the forest, I’d have the “debate” on the same day the Governor General dissolves Parliament and calls the election. Because if a party hasn’t determined what platform it is going to run on by the day the election is called, it has no business even being in the race. I’d have my debate refereed, not “moderated”, and I would use a system like the carding that happens in soccer. Anyone who interrupts an opponent making a point (and point-making would be rigidly metered to a pre-determined amount of time) would receive a warning card. Three such cards and you’re out of the studio. No ifs, buts or appeals. Oh, and the public would hear from the so-called “fringe” parties, like the Greens, the Family Coalition Party, even the Marxist-Leninists. If their candidates have passed Elections Canada muster, they’re eligible for an airing of their platforms.

Voters have the right to hear Party leaders make their cases for election. The leaders in turn have the right to make their cases to the voters. But this shouting down has to end. Because it’s not a debate when that happens; it’s the very antithesis of a democracy to drown out your opponents’ voices. If a leader is incapable of arguing his case, or just refuses to do so, in an “I talk, you listen; then you talk, I listen” dialogue format, then he or she shouldn’t be seeking elected office in Canada. Try a country where the number of candidates is 1, and the voter choice is “Yes” or don’t vote.

When I watch the non-political public panels who analyze the debates after the fact, I notice they are universally polite, especially the journalists. Even when they disagree. Why can’t our wannabe leaders exercise the same restraint and basic courtesy? Watch the tapes, for goodness’ sake guys! You all come across like screaming children in a sandbox, not someone who would govern one of the planet’s largest countries.

Is “Act your age” too subtle?