Another election two years from now, and another preemptive attack ad (this time on radio):

HE VOICE: That BC Conservative Leader sure likes everyone thinking he’s a real Conservative.

SHE VOICE: Who, John Cummins?

HE VOICE: What a joke. I mean he voted for the BC NDP in the last election.

SHE VOICE: So Cummins pretends he’s a conservative, then votes NDP. Just what we need—another unprincipled politician.

HE VOICE: That’s John Cummins.

SHE VOICE: If we split the vote, we get stuck with the NDP.

HE VOICE: What a disaster.

SHE VOICE: How can you trust a politician who says one thing and then does another?

HE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Canttrustcummins.ca. A message from the BC Liberal Party.

Yes, in 2013, the province of BC is scheduled to select its next Premier. In the last several elections, the choice has been predominantly between the incumbent right of centre Liberals and the left side NDPs, but the upcoming election promises a new mouth to feed votes, the BC Conservatives on the further right wing. They won’t win, but—as the above advertisement suggests—it’s possible that they’ll acquire sufficient starboard votes that the port-side NDP will regain power, even if a higher percentage of voters are still to the right of them.

The Liberals have lost enough popularity over the years (since the fast ferry scandal that ejected the NDPs in 2001) that they may lose their spot, anyway, but the fear of losing simply because the right-wing votes are divided has provoked them to attack their lesser rival, the Conservatives, well in advance of the election:

SHE VOICE: That John Cummins.

HE VOICE: Leader of the BC Conservatives?

SHE VOICE: Yeah, he opposed Christy’s minimum wage increase, but takes a $100, 000 pension from taxpayers.

HE VOICE: Another unprincipled politician.

SHE VOICE: He says he quote “owes it to his offspring.”

HE VOICE: His offspring, what about the rest us?

SHE VOICE: Well, we aren’t good enough for a raise.

HE VOICE: So he lives off federal tax dollars…

SHE VOICE: While running in provincial politics for the BCC. How can you trust a politician like John Cummins?

HE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Canttrustcummins.ca. A message from the BC Liberal Party.

These painful advertisements astutely follow the model successfully demonstrated by the National Conservatives (well in advance of the last Federal election) whereby they undermined the character of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff via a series of inflammatory ads that focussed on out-of-context character notes as opposed to the substance of his political argument. Pundits everywhere recoil at this style of presentation as an example of anti-intellectual advertising that caters to the worst of human biases. Even BC Liberal apologist, Alise Mills, was said she was disappointed by the ad (admitting on her weekly CKNW debate with NDP apologist, David Schreck, that it contained the same crimes against respectful discourse that she had criticized in the Premier-attacking “Christy Crunch” ads by the NDP).

Indeed, it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t say that they disdain this phony conversation style ad, flavoured with oversimplified arguments that condescendingly try to appeal to our common hearts. The argument that, because Cummins receives a powerful pension, he’s “an unprincipled politician” is particularly galling. It’s a fact of our society that politicians receive generous compensation compared to the average citizen (and so perhaps they should, given that they’re vital to our democracy, and yet will only escape character assassination if they die young). But a handsome pension does not obligate them to any particular stance on minimum wage. One could easily argue that both a lower minimum wage is best for the province (perhaps because it’s best for business and so good for the economy) while a high politician wage is also best (perhaps because it attracts the best candidates to these indispensable posts). If a politician must apply every privilege they receive to every constituent, then I look forward to the ensuing ads:

SHE VOICE: That Christy Clark.

HE VOICE: Who, the Premier?

SHE VOICE: She makes more money in a week than my 16 year-old son does in a year.

HE VOICE: So while she’s hobnobbing with her powerful BCL friends…

SHE VOICE: He’s stuck at McDonald’s.

HE VOICE: Another unprincipled politician.

SHE VOICE: I guess my son’s not good enough to eat at the same table as her.

HE VOICE: How can you trust a politician that claims to care about families, but takes money away from children?

SHE VOICE: You can’t.

ANNOUNCER: Find out more at Christyhateschildren.ca. A message from the One Society, One Salary Party of BC.

And yet, as I cringe at these ads, I wonder if it’s fair to argue that the BC Liberals shouldn’t put them out. Even though some pundits suggest that they’re increasing Cummins’ name recognition, the federal version of them worked beautifully against Michael Ignatieff even though they were equally vile. So is it wrong, then, to play irrational politics if it gives you the best chance of winning (especially if you genuinely believe you’ll do more good than your rival when elected)?

I’m not sure, but if we don’t want politicians to play such games (such as the BC NDP piling onto the popular but—most economists seem to agree—ill-informed hatred of the HST), then we need to find a way to demonstrate that we’d rather be spoken to like intelligent adults. This, I admit, is a fantastical hope, and I have no idea how it would be implemented, but I think it’s up to us to show the politicians we want such respect and will actually respond to it.

Michael Ignatieff was allegedly an intellectual (a former Harvard professor, in fact), but he didn’t present his ideas like one, probably because he was terrified to alienate an electorate who does not seem to trust academics. The late Federal NDP leader Jack Layton had a PhD, too, but he never emphasized it, not because he was modest, but I suspect because he wanted to appear like one of us—another leader with whom we could share a beer.

Attack ads are utilized because they work. Whenever a party that I’ve voted for uses one, I am embarrassed. However, in the political world, the motto seems to be “pander or perish.” Most parties do it to some degree and so shouldn’t the blame, at least in part, be placed on the society that swarms to it?