Banking on Disgust and Decline

I was sitting in a coffee shop this week with a Conservative friend when the television showed one of the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff. We both sat uncomfortably until about half way through when one of the patrons sitting at the counter said to the server: "For F*s% sake, shut that thing off." Coarse language aside, it was just the kind of reaction the Conservative ad planners were bargaining for.Let's be clear: attack ads work, and these ones against Michael Ignatieff, despite initial condemnation, will eventually have their effect. While many wonder how much of this the public will endure, the real question should be what is the Conservative Party willing to accept. They know they are in trouble in the polls - no surprise there. They also know that similar ads against Stephane Dion were devastatingly effective. So why not again?Here's one good reason, the most important of all: they kill the democratic spirit and any meagre attention average citizens might pay to public policy. The last federal campaign (only eight months ago) resulted in the lowest voter turnout on record - 59%. Research undertaken only two weeks after that campaign discovered that one of the key reasons for the disappointing number was that voters in significant numbers were "turned off," primarily by the negative Dion ads. The research also revealed that the average Canadian voter is tolerant, cosmopolitan in nature, and fair.  That being the case, when they viewed the attack ads of the last election, they did what most people like that do: turn away from the voting booth, thinking politics was disgusting.This is what the Conservatives are willing to endure in their attempt for a third minority mandate. They are banking that most of you will hate this stuff and that you'll cast a pox on all of our houses here in Parliament. In other words, their success will be measured by your failure to go to the polls - a Machiavellian exchange that says more about what politics is willing to do to win than what voters are willing to endure to stay engaged.So far, Michael Ignatieff has told his caucus members just yesterday that he can handle it, that he knows he will be hit even harder. Some call on him to strike back in similar fashion, but he resists for two reasons. First, Liberals don't have the money to fight this kind of negative war on attrition. That's clear for anyone who can read a balance sheet. But the second reason is the deciding factor in the man's insights on the Canadian condition: if in order to keep the negative ads from sticking to him he has to resort in kind, then the losers will be Canadians and the democratic validity of Canada. This kind of understanding, as displayed not only by Ignatieff, but by Layton and Duceppe as well, will be key to the restoration of political validity and citizen engagement in this country and it is to be commended - partisanship aside.Lower voter turnout and a collective tuning out of the public space is what this government is willing to endure in order to stay afloat. It banks on your low tolerance level and your inability to stay engaged and its the reason for such ads. Their not counting on their own intelligence but your low threshold for disgust and they're betting they'll win. And my Conservative friend (an MP) at the coffee shop on Sparks Street? All he could do was look down at the table. Alas, the Conservative ads are turning off the good people in their own party. Some success there!