Part of any government's strategy for re-election is to take every issue off the table that is not part of their preferred ballot question.
This is good short-term politics, but is extremely risky in the long-term, particularly when the issues papered over are fundamental cleavages in Canadian politics.
For instance, all three parties in 1988 chose to hew close enough to Meech Lake that it was off the agenda, and instead focus on other issues. But in 1993, this papering over of the cleavages allowed two new parties to burst forth: Reform and the Bloc Quebecois.
In the current election, the Conservatives are working to take issues like the deficit, Afghanistan and climate change out of debate.
One method is to leave open the question of how, so that no one wants to be the first to put forward a plan. For instance, no party is putting forward a deficit reduction plan for fear of the election turning on the painful decisions that would entail.
A second is to buy off concern in the short-term with cash, something visible in the spate of infrastructure spending.
Another is to cleave as close as possible to a popular figure and highlight your similarities, no matter how spurious or fictitious.
A great example of that is Harper's current positioning on climate change.
Despite plans that are completely at odds on policy, the Conservative communications positioning is to portray Harper and Obama as identical twins on climate change.
For instance, Harper refuses to agree with the two-degree threshold, the crucial cornerstone of Obama's plan as well as that of the other leading G8 jurisdictions.
Environmental Defence has a great new web ad that parodies Harper's attempts to cozy up to Obama quite effectively.
Environment is fast becoming a fundamental cleavage in Canadian politics. While once concern about the environment moved opposite to concern about the economy, the recent recessions has not diminished underlying worries about climate change, particularly among voters under 40.
Will Harper be able to bridge the obvious contradictions in his climate change position? Or will he fall into the chasm between rhetoric and reality?