I admit it. I watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on a regular basis.
Yes, it covers American news from an American perspective while only making occasional makes reference to Canada. Yes, it is satirical but it does provide a view of politics that is quite enlightening.
This past week, Jon Stewart interviewed Matt Bai, national political correspondent for Yahoo! News, about his recent book All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid. It is a thought-provoking interview. The last few minutes really caught my attention. I apologize up front for the length of these quotes.
Stewart asked: "Because of the way that politics is covered now, do you believe that we have lost out on truly great and possibly great leaders? ... Do you think that there are people of substance who could have done this country great things who we will never know about because of the corrosive nature of our politics?"
Bai answered: "I do, Jon. I have been covering national politics for 15 years. I have covered four presidential campaigns. I do think we lose people who don't want to put themselves through this unendurable process or their families through it. I think we drum good people out of politics who are defined by the single worst thing they have ever done as opposed to the context of their public lives.
"And I think we make it much, much easier for people who have no business holding office to enter the process because when you are not talking about ideas and worldviews and agendas, when you are talking about character and personality, it makes it very easy for someone to float through the process without ever having to explain themselves or demonstrate what they know."
Stewart's response: "Wow," and it is a sentiment with which I concur.
Bai sums up, in very few words, the issue that I have with negative campaigning - attack ads directed at the character of a person and not a reasoned argument about their ideas. Politics should be about substance and not personality.
Every now and then, I catch one of these attack ads directed by the Conservatives against Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulcair. This style of campaigning has been prominent for the past 10 years or so. That may just be a result of more media because attacks ads go back much further.
Central to these ads is the notion that we can avoid significant discussions about ideas. Let's discuss who is a nicer person or more mature or more sentimental or ... well, any number of other traits that have little to do with governance and the issues at hand.
This form of campaigning seems to have thoroughly ensconced itself at the federal level and, in a broader sense, at the provincial level. Our provincial elections of late have been more about pointing out the deficiencies of the other guy rather than saying what you would like to do.
The exception might be the last provincial campaign. Adrian Dix seemed to be trying to run a campaign on his and his party's ideas. They seemed to be trying to run a positive campaign outlining their positions.
It backfired. They lost. One can almost be assured that the next provincial election will feature more efforts to stress character and personality over substance.
At the municipal level, character assassination just doesn't seem to be on the table. In part, I think that this might have something to do with how close-knit the Prince George community is. Regardless of who wins and who loses, you can't avoid people in this town. Being nasty will come back to bite someone.
It is not surprising the first mayoral debate seemed to be a love-in rather than an all-out brawl. The two candidates, Don Zurowski and Lyn Hall, are going to be working with each other after the election regardless of which one is mayor. Nastiness just won't work.
So the issues discussed should be issues of substance. The campaign is an opportunity to float ideas and tell the public what is their world view.
Hopefully, during the next few weeks, each candidate will be asked the hard questions about their vision of Prince George. For example, Zurowski wants to grow us to a city of 100,000 - but how? At what cost? What are the implications? Do we have the infrastructure? Can we support that many new businesses and residences? Is growth for growth's sake worthwhile?
Personally, I like the vision of a larger Prince George. We have fallen well behind our competitors in attracting new residents. But the devil is in the details, as the saying goes. It is those details that we should be discussing as we lead up to the election.
Elections should be about ideas and not personality politics.
