Yesterday, I wrote about the risks for Michael Ignatieff of ending up in an election that turns almost exclusively on questions of personality, as opposed one that is a blend of personality, values and ideas.
For Stephen Harper too, there are strong reasons to avoid a campaign about personalities. You might expect me to argue how widely disliked Harper is, but actually I don't see much evidence to support that.
While there isn't massive affection for Mr Harper, truth is, we rarely feel that way about our politicians. I remember thinking as we took our daughters to pay our respects to the late prime minister Trudeau on Parliament Hill that he was much more affectionately regarded the longer it had been since he was in office.
The affection Canada had for Jean Chrétien was often way overstated too. Most people thought he was a decent enough fellow, for most of his career, but the "humble and lovable little guy" rep is an exaggeration. Brian Mulroney? So that accounts for most of the last 40 years.
His partisan opponents may disagree with this, but the reality is Stephen Harper produces feelings that run hot for about 30 per cent (some pro, some anti) of the population, but produce lass passion with the other 70 per cent.
His image is someone who is serious, intelligent, competent, steady. If you ask about his weaknesses, he is seen as more partisan than statesman, a bit icy and too much the conservative ideologue. Hardly the stuff that runs to angry mobs calling for his head.
Mr. Harper has weathered the worst economic downturn in decades, has spent us to the biggest deficit ever, and is facing a tougher leadership challenge from the Liberal Party.
Through it all, his support levels are scraped and dented, but far from destroyed.
That said, standing pat won’t be good enough to produce anything more than another minority, which probably doesn't work too well for him. To grow he needs to be about something more than a vigorous attack on his opponent of the day, an agent of doctrinaire conservatism, or a dispassionate manager of files.
If he presides over an all out attack on the personality of Mr. Ignatieff, he calcifies his reputation as a partisan first and to the bitter end. Alternatively, he could try to rebrand himself, an effort which started out well in the last campaign. But the problem with this idea is that it takes longer than 40 days, often doesn't work, and exposes you to some unique risks. Our society's fleeting attention mean personality campaigns are becoming more risky than ever, with the prospect of victory or loss turning on a single phrase, photograph, musing, or indulgence.
The best approach for Mr. Harper to break through his ceiling would also be to put some larger ideas on the table. He needs a new, better way to show centrist, female and urban voters that his agenda is truly theirs, that if they reward him with a larger mandate, he will not use it to pursue his partisanship, or to try to impose the kind of right of centre ideas that most of them don't want. His opportunity is to define a next-generation centrist agenda for Canada.
Simply saying the other guy is a mess and his ideas are no good won't accomplish that. Saying "just trust me" probably won't get it done either. While everyone can agree that putting ideas on the table is risky, its a mistake to assume that not doing so is safe.
