Some years back when Jean Chretien was the Prime Minister of Canada a man attended the leadership convention of a Canadian political party.
It is a little-known fact that of countries with a parliamentary system of government, Canada is the only one that has taken on a form of the American national party convention as a way to choose its leaders. The first such convention was held in Canada in 1919 in Ottawa.
 |
| Liberal Convention 1919 - Library Archives Canada |
Put simply a leadership convention is one where party members chosen as delegates convene and choose a leader by voting.
This man, William, was not an important player at the convention – just an ordinary delegate, one of about 1,500.
Policy debates took place and the leadership candidates gave speeches and hosted hospitality suites. Then came the voting for a new leader.
The candidate who William supported was ahead after the first ballot. According to the rules, the candidate who finished last on the first ballot was eliminated. His elimination meant that his supporters could now vote for one of the other candidates on the second ballot.
During the time before the second ballot voting began there was much excitement. Music played, delegates marched and danced around the hall chanting and calling out for others to support their favoured candidate. The major television networks captured the contrived hoopla of modern-day democracy.
Together with other delegates William sashayed around the room carrying the sign of the candidate who he had supported on the first ballot. As he made his way somewhat self-consciously around the perimeter of the hall, a young volunteer organizer for the leading candidate offered him a sign belonging to the eliminated candidate. William recognized the young woman as she was an active member of his local riding association. In fact, at the last riding association meeting she had successfully presented a motion that advocated for the establishment of a proportional representation system of voting.
William took the sign and continued to march around the hall displaying the signs of two candidates. Those watching might assume that he was now shifting his vote from the eliminated candidate to the leading one. To people watching this all seemed very authentic. In truth, William did not particularly like the eliminated candidate and had not voted for him.
However, in the hall many people applauded William. To them, this delegate seemed to be holding up well even though he must surely be disappointed that his candidate had been eliminated. For them this man was making a wise choice for his second ballot vote.
William considered himself to be a truthful person. Most people who knew William would confirm this. And it was certainly not a lie when he took up the second sign. However, he felt some slight amount of guilt for his actions. He wasn’t destroying opponent’s election signs or selling bogus memberships or anything malicious or illegal but his actions were not authentic ones.
For centuries philosophers have explored the concept of genuine authenticity in public life. It is considered an essential attribute of modern democracies. But as time wears on the concept of authenticity is eroding faster than the Athabasca Glacier.
Several years before this convention William had been a reluctant candidate for public office. He was persuaded to run at the last moment when the previously nominated candidate had been offered and accepted a job in the public service as a Communications Specialist.
While William knew the issues, he wasn’t a good public speaker, didn’t know how to work a room and thought that knocking on people’s doors was an invasion of their privacy. William believed, not surprisingly, that these were serious shortcomings for a candidate for public office. Somewhat like a vegan suddenly being put in charge of grilling at the service club’s annual ribfest fundraiser.
“Don’t worry,” he was told. “Just be you. Be true to yourself. That’s all you need to do.”
William passed this advice on to his long-suffering wife, Ruth. Ruth wasn’t terribly interested in politics. She wasn’t sure if “being yourself” was the best advice in her husband’s case but she always encouraged him in his endeavours.
“Yes, go ahead run. Be yourself, but be restrained in doing it,” she advised.
The riding association had apparently done some preliminary polling and William had scored fairly well for someone who was not well known. William was also encouraged by this polling but wasn’t sure why.
While he hadn’t been elected, hadn’t really come close to winning in fact, William had knocked on many doors and had presented his party’s platform ideas to the public as he was expected to do. Much to the consternation of William’s campaign manager, who didn’t want the candidate to spend an excessive amount of time at each house, William also listened to those people who answered their doors and made an effort to appreciate their concerns. William found it noteworthy that their concerns were not in line with what his party and the other parties were talking about. The parties were talking about national unity, Arctic sovereignty and trade agreements. But the people William talked to were more interested in jobs, plant closings and whether they’d be able to swim at the lake this year.
Something was happening in town. Not a noticeable overnight change but a gradual move in thinking that politics and politicians didn’t have the answers to today’s problems.
People were disillusioned with public institutions. They were looking inward and opting out of being involved with the broader community, although they were doing this reluctantly, William thought.
At the time, William read reports from experts who had identified this trend. These experts believed that many people felt they had no voice in their government. So, they were falling back on themselves and beginning to explore personal “authenticity” that was unconnected to the wider community.
To William this was just a long-winded way to say people were becoming disengaged with government and their communities.
Of course, William knew nothing about social media when he had been a candidate and at this particular convention as these events pre-dated the advent of this new technology. Later, as social media matured, experts would assert that social media offered the potential of genuine authenticity.
For her part, the young organizer who had passed the sign to William continued in a career where she advocated for progressive policies.
It was her belief that as social media evolved it would offer regular people the opportunity to speak their minds unencumbered by commercial media constraints. After all, what could be more authentic than an individual, independent blogger or Facebook user speaking out on whatever s/he thought needed to be said?
The organizer was hard working, idealistic and committed. Working in the non-profit sector she learned how to use social media to promote causes important to her. She returned to the political world around the same time that politicians discovered how to manipulate social media for their own selfish purposes.
Like the young organizer and the man at the convention, the politicians and their advisors thought strategically. But their thoughts were on a larger scale, a much larger scale.
They recognized that blogs, Twitter and Facebook provided an opportunity to present the “real and authentic” side of politicians.
In order to learn from these political experts, the young organizer, Jennifer Taylor, was sent for training at the School for Democratic Political Organizing.
Jennifer took a train to the city. She was most eager to learn from the trainer, who was himself an experienced organizer, as well as others who would be attending.
The trainer was well prepared and professional looking. He was dressed in trousers, a button-down shirt (good for accommodating a lavalier), a tie, and jacket. He followed the trainer’s technique book by dressing one level up from the trainees.
The trainer used pithy dialogue and appropriate and up to date presentation materials.
His case for authenticity went along these lines.
The politician needs to be seen as a genuine person. The voters need to understand that s/he is one of the people – someone with whom you would enjoy having a beer; someone you could trust to babysit your kids.
Through the use of appropriate social media your candidate can reach voters with a message that you will be able to deliver in a clear un-edited way. And, by doing this you will bypass the fallacious fourth estate, he said.
The trainer shared a list of ten tactics that must be incorporated into every social media strategy. Number 6, the Lyndon Johnson “make-em-deny-it maxim” stood out for the organizer.
It has long been reported that, during a Texas election, Lyndon Johnson, the 36th President of the United States, ordered aides to put out a rumour that his opponent, a former pig farmer, was amorous with the farm animals.
When Johnson issued this order an aide responded, “We can’t prove that.”
I know, Johnson apparently replied. “I just want him to deny it.”
So here is how “make-em-deny-it” works today in the world of social media.
A candidate who you oppose makes a statement. Put out your own response. It doesn’t need to be totally accurate.
Now this means there will be at least a couple of points of view out there. You need to do this as soon as you can. If you are skilled in putting that piece out it will go viral before it can be fact checked.
Members of the public, reporters, journalists, and bloggers won’t have the time or ability to verify claims. By the time they do, if they do, your story will have become embedded in the public’s mind.
“But this is wrong,” the young organizer interjected.
“How is that,” responded the trainer? It seemed he was ready for an argument.
“This challenging of real facts with half truths, half baked conspiracy theories and misinformation just makes the public more cynical.”
“Look Ms. Taylor. Are you in this to win debating points at the Socrates School of Ethics or are you in this to win?”
The trainer explained that studies have been done that tell us that if people go after the information that you’ve put out by directly trying to refute it; they may actually have the effect of spreading your information even more.
“In other words, it works.”
So, the lesson in authenticity that the organizer would take back to her constituency was in fact about an authenticity that should be carried out as a strategy. It was not really a genuine authenticity. Genuine authenticity was a goal that Jennifer thought all individuals should pursue.
The organizer left the training somewhat disillusioned but returned home confident that in her constituency work she and her other campaign volunteers could manage their social media in a way that would be authentic and not a phony strategy like the one advocated by the trainer.
Not surprisingly, she bumped into that man who she had handed the sign to at that long-ago convention. He was involved with Jennifer and others on the election planning committee for their local candidate. William had been doing some reading on campaign strategies used by the President of the United States.
“Look at that guy down in the White House? He lies all the time. But a lot of people will tell ya he seems authentic. I don’t get it. Do you?
The young organizer took a deep breath. “Hmm. Well, those people you are referring to believe he says what he means. He is not like all those regular politicians. That’s what they think, anyway.”
“But what he says isn’t true most of the time.”
“He doesn’t worry about that. He lies authentically and somehow it works.”
The two shook their heads, wondered what was becoming of the world and how all of this would impact their local campaign.
Then two days before the election was called the independent, non-partisan agency of Parliament responsible for overseeing elections made the following announcement.
“Due to interference in our social media by foreign powers we have made the difficult but necessary decision to make it illegal to use social media during the upcoming election. Any candidates, political parties and third parties engaged in election advertising will face heavy fines and possible jail time for infractions. Only through these actions will we be able to ensure the authenticity of our elections.”
At the campaign team meeting the day after the announcement William and Jennifer and the rest of the team were worried. They had spent months organizing their campaign and it was heavily dependent on the use of social media.
“What will we do now,” Jennifer asked the assembled volunteers?
There was silence. The new rules on social media had come as a big surprise to everyone.
Then from back of the office came shuffling noises. It sounded like someone was struggling with an awkward load as they tried to enter through the back door. Soon, William’s diligent wife Ruth entered the room.
“I’ve been clearing out junk, old papers and the like out of William’s so-called home office and came across these boxes of campaign strategy books from the 1991 election. Are they of any use?”
The volunteers all turned to look at Jennifer Taylor. Jennifer smiled serenely.
“Well Ruth, the answer is yes.”
Postscript
And so Jennifer’s team ran what they believed to be an authentic campaign. They worked hard to engage with voters in honest face to face dialogue. Their advertising and promotional material emphasized the positive aspects of their platform and did not mis-represent their opponent’s positions. While other campaigns found a way around the restrictions on social media, Jennifer avoided its use. They failed to win the riding although they did significantly better than in the past.
People noticed what this campaign was doing and there was praise for it.
The only remaining newspaper in town even editorialized about Jennifer’s team’s campaign calling it a return to what politics should be all about – an authentic politics.
-----
Looking for Authentic Voices was published last year in Literature for the People (Editor Raymond Fenech).
